Cart

Medical & Biology Students Reject Evolution In Favor Of Creationism

Charles Darwin. Maull and Polyblank for the Literary and Scientific Portrait Club (1855).

A growing number of biology and medical students are rejecting the very basis of their chosen subject in favor of creationism, reports Steve Jones in the Telegraph:

…Now, though, we have evolution, the grammar of biology. More and more, students do not like it. I no longer teach medics but I do have a lot of contact with biology undergraduates and go to many schools and to student conferences. Over the past decade there has grown up a determined denial by many people of the truths of modern science.

At University College London we have numbers of Islamic students, almost all dedicated, hard-working and able. Some, unfortunately, refuse to accept Darwin’s theory on faith grounds, as do some of their Christian fellows; and just a couple of years ago a Turkish anti-evolution speaker (a Dr Babuna, as I remember) was invited on to campus to give an account of why The Origin is wrong. He was the scion of an extraordinary – and very rich – anti-evolution organisation based in his native land that has sent out thousands of lavishly illustrated creationist books and has linked Darwinism to Nazism and worse.

Much of their propaganda has been lifted from Christian fundamentalism and there is a certain irony in where it has ended up. I have had plenty of verbal complaints from undergraduates of both persuasions that I am demeaning religion, while others ask that they be excused lectures on my subject, or simply fail to turn up.

In schools things are worse: some kids will walk out rather than listen. Their teachers can be just as bad. The most virulent attack I have had in recent years came from a physics teacher in a respected north London state school, who – to the embarrassment of his colleagues – barracked my talk on evolutionary biology with repeated statements that Darwinism contradicted the laws of thermodynamics. I was forced, uncharacteristically, to be rude.

Anyone, of course, is free to believe whatever they wish. But why train to become a biologist, or a doctor, when you deny the very foundations of your subject? …

I don’t want to have to interview my doctors on whether they are Creationists, but I guess I will have to.

Nobilis

I don’t want to have to interview my doctors on whether they are Creationists, but I guess I will have to.

MoralDrift

what does it matter? Most doctors just dispense drugs anyways. Most diagnoses are just from flow charts along with the treatment. Surgery and setting bones, stitches etc…wont have any bearing on the doctors evolution/creation beliefs.

the last sentence was supposed to be flipped. The doctors beliefs wont have a bearing on the basic tasks of practicing medicine

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

am i the only one that sees this as a fundamental problem with medicine today?

Mr Willow

Not at all.

It only seems that way because most people are too tranquilized by anti-depressants to notice medicine (among a vast array of other things) has a problem to begin with.

chubby

yeah, injecting just the right amount of poison that kills the infection but not you, seems……

truth hurts

why is the argument always between “evolution” and “creationism”? has anyone ever considered the possibility that they may both be wrong?

truth hurts

why is the argument always between “evolution” and “creationism”? has anyone ever considered the possibility that they may both be wrong?

Liquidstar

yes, why is it the only other alternative to the theory of evolution is someone’s personal religion? and why does it have to be either or? why is evolution so threatening to some? Does no one even try anymore to integrate their “faith” with evolution? there s no more apologists, it s just “no” now.

ARGUE WITH ME

“Does no one even try anymore to integrate their “faith” with evolution?” — Exactly, if you really look at it, really try to make cross-connections, think outside the box, I think religion and science go together pretty well. I’m not talking about assumptions either, straight scientific facts do not stray far off from religion concepts. Religion and Science are trying to explain two sides of the same story.

DeepCough

Believe this or not, Intelligent Design seems to be the theosophical bridge between science and religion, as Intelligent Design insists that there must have been a “Designer” of sorts to create all of these complex structures that work together for the sake of homeostatic function. But the problem with ID is that it stops at the Observation stage of the Scientific Method immediately jumps to the conclusion without establishing a proper way to get there, which makes the answer, “God did it.”

But I really don’t see any point to this flagrantly false dichotomy of “creationism vs. evolution,” because in no way was Darwin himself trying to discredit creationism, and he said so himself: “With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always
painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write
atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and
as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides
of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade
myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly
created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding
within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with
mice.”

The people who hate Darwin the most are the religious fundamentalists, who are cultural absolutists, that believe their view of the world is truly righteous and all others are false. These kind of people, coincidentally enough, cannot incorporate evolution into their worldview because they cannot evolve their perception of the world outside of their cherished doctrine, which is thoroughly rigid and totally solipsist.

ARGUE WITH ME

“But the problem with ID is that it stops at the Observation stage of
the Scientific Method immediately jumps to the conclusion without
establishing a proper way to get there, which makes the answer, “God did
it.” ”

Wouldn’t the action of ending at the conclusion “God did it” be called a belief? And that’s the whole concept of the religion.
But wouldn’t seeing slight genotypic and phenotypic variations, and then jumping to the conclusion that we came from something entirely different be just exactly what you are saying? Immediately concluding? It would be much more than just a slight variation. Something we have never seen happen naturally. So in fact, it would be a belief in science, which is just as unfounded as saying “God did it” would be. so it all ends up being just a choice of beliefs

DeepCough

Incorrect. Patently incorrect. Beliefs require only faith. Science requires hypothesis, observation, experimentation, and conclusion in order to arrive at an answer to a question.
Furthermore, (“But wouldn’t seeing slight genotypic and phenotypic variations, and then
jumping to the conclusion that we came from something entirely
different be just exactly what you are saying? Immediately concluding?”) you really, really, really need to look at the fucking fossil record again.

What missing link? Are you still looking for the “God Gene,” too? Is it so difficult to understand that simple things can become bigger and more complex over time? Do you even take into account that the Earth is over 4 BILLION years old?! Do you still think that the reason for the philtrum is because an angel hushes an infant with its index finger while it’s still in the womb? Obviously, linearity ain’t your thing, because then you’d understand how the fossil record shows how all organisms, at some point, were connected, much in the way that all the branches of the Tree of Life are connected.

P.S. I hope this image of the HAND FISH (that’s right, that’s its common name) makes you shit a brick.

“because then you’d understand how the fossil record shows how all organisms, at some point, were connected”?

hey, kinda OT, but can you explain this a little? I’m writing a little short story about something along the same lines

DeepCough

Dude, it’s called a “metaphor.”

ARGUE WITH ME

LOL what? So lets say your right that the earth is billions of years old, soo out of the millions of species on earth, and all the years that we have kept written records as a human race, that we haven’t witnessed one species evolve into something else entirely different? I feel like those odds are worse than the lotto. Your picture is funny, what are you trying to prove? Either that is just an ugly fish, or, lets have it your way, and say this was evolution. So thats evolution huh? A fish that may have evolved from a different fish, which is actually a form of natural selection? So it looks like it gots legs. What happens when it goes out of water with its new legs, its gonna die as shit BECAUSE…its a fish. Where was i supposed to shit the brick at? Lol just because we just discovered it doesn’t mean it wasn’t like this the whole time. Its a different form of anglar fish.
All you gotta do is show me where I can find a picture/account of the actual thing we evolved from and we’ll be set. Almost there! Dont stop now!

DeepCough

Well, I hypothesize that you descended from a race of beings called “troglodytes,” a species of Hominid that couldn’t quite figure out evolution, so it never learned to really “think.” And based upon my observations of your statements, you just can’t get past the Observation stage of the Scientific method (Michael Behe has the same problem), and in my attempts to explain simply how evolution works, you continue to rebuke with the same arguments, so I must conclude that you are clearly one of the descendants of these retarded “troglodytes,” which owes its survival purely to religious establishments to purport dogma and rituals for the sake of conversion.

See, that’s how you use the Scientific method.

ARGUE WITH ME

Isn’t it called cause and effect? I have a question, and if you answer it then the effect would be completion. You, sir, have yet to answer it. So besides natural selection between close species, where the hell do we come from? What did we evolve from? Where is it? Where is one species out of the millions of species, that is currently in the process of evolving into a different organism with distinct physiological changes? Lol you are the one that brought up the scientific process, but now all of a sudden it’s ok we can skip a step?

“simply” explain how evolution works? Hahah How? By sending me a picture of a platypus and a fish? that as far as I know, are still doing what platypuses do and still doing what fish do? Well your input is pretty useless. Have a good one

neurolux

We have no living ancestors because they evolved. We share an ancestor with chimpanzees, for example. That ancestor species evolved because of environmental changes and small random mutations. Those mutations that helped the species thrive long enough to have offspring were passed on to their offspring. Yet those mutations eventually changed the species enough to make it a different species.

You’ve been affected by many evolutionary changes; bacterial infections you get, associated with colds, are the direct result of micro-organisms having evolved via mutations for centuries. Surely you’ve “watched” the news as they’ve proclaimed another “anti-biotic resistant” strain of bacteria has been “found;” a direct result of mutation and natural selection, in your lifetime, further adding evidence to the Principle of Evolution.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

Remember religion, science, and philosophy were all tied together back in the day.

Patrick

read my post (the non-reply one)

MoralDrift

I agree, we are left with two lackluster choices and if you dont pick one there is something wrong with you

Liquidstar

yes, why is it the only other alternative to the theory of evolution is someone’s personal religion? and why does it have to be either or? why is evolution so threatening to some? Does no one even try anymore to integrate their “faith” with evolution? there s no more apologists, it s just “no” now.

Suddenly Spam!

That Greek guy with the crazy hair and bad tan says Aliens did it.

Redacted

That Greek guy with the crazy hair and bad tan says Aliens did it.

Ronniedobbs

More stuffing!

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jai-Ankers/100000395755973 Jai Ankers

He pisses me off, but I do agree that aliens gave civilization a helping hand. Way too many cultures have stories of “gods” descending from the sky.

But that they created us, not so much.

ARGUE WITH ME

You got an argumentative fallacy in your discussion. “Over the past decade there has grown up a determined denial by many people of the truths of modern science.” Truths should be replaced with theories. The theories of modern science. I think its funny how both religion’s and science’s stance on a point of origin for this universe is all based off of theories. We use our present knowledge to try to explain what we don’t know. This is the kicker: We as humans do not know as much as we think, there is so much more information that is hidden in the details. Our human brains can’t even comprehend a mere 4-D object, we are completely limited in our range of knowledge. So why do we think we are smart enough to figure out for certainty the creation of the universe? There are million upon millions of aspects that go into creating a universe, even in the concept of evolution itself, yet we make bold claims whenever we find something exciting. We see just the tip of the iceberg. Religion and Science are both theories in the question of where did we come from. Neither has definite indisputable proof. If both are incomplete in their structure, this would conclude that they are both be equally wrong or equally right. So then its just a decision, a 50/50 split, what theory do we want to believe.

I personally think humans aren’t that smart. We witness the reality around us, record it, understand it. But then they go above and beyond what they came to spectate; the witnesses who are learning from our reality start to believe that they are smarter than the reality that has caused us to learn. That’s where are mistake is. Then the masses get influenced by prideful assumptions that take place in the high reaches of the scientific community. A simile: Some Joe Shmo reads a blog about scientific insight, reads it over, it makes logical sense on his computer screen, so then all of a sudden he thinks he is smart and understands how the universe works. Until someone gets into an in-depth conversation with him, where they then realize his knowledge is all generalizations.

There is a “missing link” for a reason

ARGUE WITH ME

You got an argumentative fallacy in your discussion. “Over the past decade there has grown up a determined denial by many people of the truths of modern science.” Truths should be replaced with theories. The theories of modern science. I think its funny how both religion’s and science’s stance on a point of origin for this universe is all based off of theories. We use our present knowledge to try to explain what we don’t know. This is the kicker: We as humans do not know as much as we think, there is so much more information that is hidden in the details. Our human brains can’t even comprehend a mere 4-D object, we are completely limited in our range of knowledge. So why do we think we are smart enough to figure out for certainty the creation of the universe? There are million upon millions of aspects that go into creating a universe, even in the concept of evolution itself, yet we make bold claims whenever we find something exciting. We see just the tip of the iceberg. Religion and Science are both theories in the question of where did we come from. Neither has definite indisputable proof. If both are incomplete in their structure, this would conclude that they are both be equally wrong or equally right. So then its just a decision, a 50/50 split, what theory do we want to believe.

I personally think humans aren’t that smart. We witness the reality around us, record it, understand it. But then they go above and beyond what they came to spectate; the witnesses who are learning from our reality start to believe that they are smarter than the reality that has caused us to learn. That’s where are mistake is. Then the masses get influenced by prideful assumptions that take place in the high reaches of the scientific community. A simile: Some Joe Shmo reads a blog about scientific insight, reads it over, it makes logical sense on his computer screen, so then all of a sudden he thinks he is smart and understands how the universe works. Until someone gets into an in-depth conversation with him, where they then realize his knowledge is all generalizations.

There is a “missing link” for a reason

Mysophobe

“If both are incomplete in their structure, this would conclude that they are both be equally wrong or equally right.”

Admittedly I’m a human and thus not very smart, but this sure looks like one of them there argumentative fallacies to me. And yeah, evolution is “just a theory”, sigh. And religion is just a fairy tale, not a scientific theory in this universe or any other.

ARGUE WITH ME

So your telling me..
If you have two conceptual thought processes to chose from, both of them not being fully complete, both having a missing piece of information. That one could be inherently more “correct” than the other, despite both missing information? That is a fallacy. You can’t know what is contained in the missing information, as well as knowing to what degree of understanding the missing information would unveil.
Unless you can say with 100% certainty of what one of the missing informations consists of, from the most minor details up to the most major, then you would be right. You would also be rich, and probably not on disinfo.

Simile: You got two glasses of different looking liquids. You are trying to make a cocktail, but you got to use one to put in the cocktail. You got a choice between the two liquids. One of them, is completely safe but has unknown chemical in it that will do no harm. The other glass of the liquid substance has a another unknown substance in it but we are told is a “bad” chemical. You don’t know what it is. You can’t tell if the unknowns are in any drink. You don’t know what will happen if you drink it. You got a choice between the two to put in your cocktail. Both have a missing piece of information, which is neither liquid says it’s contents and both are indistinguishable between the two added chemicals; as well you don’t know the effects if you happen to drink the “bad” liquid. Both are identical in unknowing, but different in color appearance. Just like religion and science. If I was helping you make the decision as to which one to add, Your argument would say that you are going to pick the one that looks most appealing, in which you would try to convince me that your selection doesn’t have the “bad” in it because it is the most complimentary to the drink and that I should drink it too. You are thoroughly convinced. When in reality, it is a 50/50 chance that either drink has the bad chemical in it, despite the appearance. Your choice wouldn’t be inherently more correct because of appeal. It turns out that the “bad” chemical is cyanide, the other is sugar. The missing information for both drinks has the potential to kill you, both unknowns at the time are equally weighted in importance. Because both are unknown, one choice is just a dangerous as the other choice, there is no difference, they are equal at the time of choice because you don’t know the contents of what is unknown. Just because you say that this drink looks more appealing so it should be the favorite of our choices would be logically wrong and you would not be taking the possible range of significance of the other unknown (like religion) into consideration. An unknown of the least favorite option is just as equal in importance as the unknown in the favorite option. And one of either option has the possibility to be what you didn’t expect, like cyanide. You will never know what you will find. The only smart decision would be to say I’m not drinking either glasses – which confirms that they are both equally wrong or equally right depending on how you look at it. The incomplete “knowledge structure” (ingredients) of the drink would lead one to say I’m not drinking either drink because I can’t possibly know the correct decision until I die
Thus…
“If both are incomplete in their structure, this would conclude that they are both be equally wrong or equally right.” would be correct

And for fairy tales, I can honestly say Iv never seen a fairy tale predict the re-establishment of an entire country…ever.

Derp

Evolution is a proven theory. Creationism is not. That is all there is to it.

Stumage

Thats not technically correct,it would be better to say: A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. A theory is basically an accepted hypothesis because it has the most accumulated evidence to support it.

Redacted

Evolution is not proven. It at least has evidence, though.

ARGUE WITH ME

Natural selection and adaption are proven, not the generation of a complete new organism outside of what it previously was.

Andrew

They are exactly the same thing. The only differences are semantic.

ARGUE WITH ME

No it’s not, thats exactly my case. Has anything ever been documented where an animal started transforming to have a completely different permanent function. I’m not talking about genetic activation/deactivation giving way to “hidden” traits that the environment induces. ex: Pigs turn into hogs in the wild. Put them back in the barn they become pigs again.

Tuna Ghost

species don’t have “permanent functions”. Some organs do, like, you know, your appendix. And evolution can make those organs redundant or useless. Like your appendix.

No one is talking about genetic activation. When are you going to acknowledge that speciation is the spawning of a new species? Because a cricket doesn’t turn into a poodle, you don’t call it evolution? C’mon guy.

http://www.facebook.com/BrooklynDHM.OG Ricky Yapkowitz

Evolution is the accumulated changes over time; the time for which you are referring is on the order of magnitude of millions of years. If you would have been around for that long a time, then you would have indeed “seen” the “complete(ly) new organism outside of (from) what (organism) it previously ‘was’…” along with the other organisms also “descended” from the same ancestral form. Furthermore, it must be made perfectly clear, that the present organism NEVER “was” the distant ancestral organism, but via numerous mutations and natural selections evolved into what it is presently.

ARGUE WITH ME

Out of millions of years, currently right now, not one single organism out of the millions of species, is currently evolving into a different genome. Standard answer. If you were right, and they did evolve in the origin of life sense, that still doesn’t explain why all the animals didn’t evolve into the “lowest common denominator” that would ensure survival. Or if a variety of different organisms were in the same environment during this evolutionary process, why they don’t all share common characteristics that would give them distinct living advantages in the environment which is represented by natural selection. Why is there so much variability in what is “best” for an organism, when it is clear that having legs, wings, fins, and gils, at the same time would be the most advantagous? They have had millions upon millions of years to develop, plenty of enough time. So why not? Or, it doesn’t give rise to the idea of a sparrow. Why, after all those years, wouldn’t a sparrow find it advantageous to evolve to be a bigger bird so its not prey for every eagle? What is determining what organisms can evolve into a predator status? What is determining which animals cannot evolve their way out of predation?
Im getting the idea that it is kind of like skin tone, there is that classic idea that sooner or later interracial relationships will eventually eliminate difference in color, and everyone will be “grey.” (I don’t particularly know if that is actually possible but its the concept). So why after all that time, is there not a “grey” phenotypic trait that ensures ultimate survival in the environment that is shared between all organisms, thus eliminating all other organisms not sharing it through natural selection?
Why, is our brain cognitively superior than all the others? It is a living advantage to be cognitively enhanced, so why isn’t there at least one more animal that shares this trait? Not one animal ever happened to cross paths with what ever we crossed (pre-evolution) that would give an organism superior cognitive abilities?
No other animal, besides primates, happened to grow a mutation out of all those years that would give them opposable thumbs? Why is their such a distinct difference in advantageous traits? Why isn’t their a very random inferior animal that happened to evolve to oposable thumbs? Did humans and primates take up all the oposable thumb DNA?
What is it that was guiding the most basic unit of life through species development, determining the non-essential “extra characteristics” that are displayed such as color, color of beaks, the conditioned variability of eye color, hair/fur textures, position of noses, ect

Tuna Ghost

Out of millions of years, currently right now, not one single organism out of the millions of species, is currently evolving into a different genome.

You don’t know what the word “genome” means, do you. I ask because I haven’t seen you use this word correctly yet.

That still doesn’t explain why all the animals didn’t evolve into the “lowest common denominator” that would ensure survival

That doesn’t ensure survival. Lack of variation in organisms means greater vulnerability to extinction rather than less, no matter how suited they are. Extinction events in the history of the planet have demonstrated this time and again. Besides, even bacteria, which are the most resilient organisms we’ve come across to date, would eventually evolve into something if left on its own for a billion years. Why aren’t you able to grasp this?

No other animal, besides primates, happened to grow a mutation out of all those years that would give them opposable thumbs?

Because apex predators don’t need thumbs. At any rate, you say “only primates have thumbs, lol that’s dumb” when in reality the scientific community says “if it has an opposable thumb, its a primate”.

Besides, the thumb issue speaks for evolution, not against. Many different species of mammal have similar bone structures in their limbs (see dolphins) which suggest a common ancestor.

Andrew

Evolution, once you understand it, is simply logical. Even if some species were originally created by God, it would still happen as it is happening today.

Tuna Ghost

What do you mean by “completely new”? Several seemingly different species have very, very similar DNA. What differences are you looking for? You keep moving the goalposts.

Derp the idiot

Every time an organism reproduces something that is from its own species it supports creationism dipshit.

Andrew

How so?

Sytallix

The difference is that creationism has essentially no evidence to back it up, people just see complexity and assume some “divine” god made it. People scream “Impossible!” at the idea of evolution and feel it be unbelievable and so foolishly accept any propaganda offered up by merely human authorities, whom at the same time claim to “know” all that there is it know. It seems people are scared, that something they can’t comprehend happens right before their eyes.

ARGUE WITH ME

Scared? Its called disagreeing with what is presented as facts, when in reality it is theory, and even more an assumptive theory when saying where we would have came from. Disagreeing, not scared

http://www.facebook.com/BrooklynDHM.OG Ricky Yapkowitz

Again, Evolution is a Principle in Science, not a theory (see above.)

ARGUE WITH ME

See explanation above, or below, your choice

http://www.facebook.com/BrooklynDHM.OG Ricky Yapkowitz

Again, Evolution is a Principle in Science, not a theory (see further explanation above )

Mysophobe

I stopped reading halfway through your “simile”. You seem to be getting your information about evolutionary theory from a 30 year old textbook. Normally I would engage anyone, especially someone with your screen name and convoluted understanding of logic, but you are literally too stupid to insult. Have at it. Here’s a parting brain teaser for you: How do bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?

ARGUE WITH ME

Your little brain teaser is not evolution in the sense of what your talking about. “here you go with your false equivalencies” lol I’m dumb as shit I guess. I see what’s in front of me as for what it is, I don’t automatically assume more than what is warranted. Little brain teaser for you: Have you seen bacteria that’s evolving into something entirely different? Or have you seen bacteria grow thumbs as part of some point progressive mutation?

99prozent

people HAVE been observing bacterias evolving traits that they did not have before. is a penicillin-resistant bacterium still the same bacterium or “something entirely different”? Your “argument” is a linguistic one, not a biological.

given the timespans involved in acquiring new in-species traits, your stupid (there, i said it…) question for anecdotal evidence “have you seen…?” is pure trolling. as is asking if a single-cell organism would actually grow an opposable multi-cell bodily appendix for use with 4 other fingers which it does not have.

ARGUE WITH ME

How is that stupid, or how am I stupid? (Your so brave by the way) lol. An antibiotic resistant bacteria, still at the end of the day, is bacteria. Its not evolving into a fungus, its not evolving into yeast. Your little response here is exemplifying natural selection. Traits/genes become activated/deactivated depending on the environment, and bacteria could even pick up free dna and try to to incorporate in their own plasmid, giving them antibiotic resistance, or whatever it encodes for. But this still does not change the fact that It is, and will remain, bacteria. Pure trolling then huh? So since I’m stupid, and your smart, would you tell me from which us humans evolved from? What was the organism? And again, then why out of the millions of species on earth, is none currently going through a physiological evolution that you guys describe as evolutionism. From something sub-human into us? So we’ve never seen it, apparentlly the process takes so long that we can’t see it for ourselves since, there is no proof of human evolution from anything else but a human, and yet I’m still told to believe this. To think bacteria becoming drug resistant is the same concept as a fish growing legs, is completely wrong and stupid.

Andrew

“Species” are just names humans come up with to define animals we see. All animals are transitional, and “microevolution” is to “macroevolution” what inches are to miles. One necessarily implies and leads to the other.

You are aware that speciation, a species transitioning into another, has been observed, right? As in people have literally watched it happen?

And we have seen a species evolve into humanity. We’ve seen it in the fossil record.

ARGUE WITH ME

To andrew and Tuna: I am aware that species can transform into another species, but its still within the same genome, and 99% of the time its between closely related species. Because their is room for genetic variation in the genome, as to add an extra layer of fat/fur/camouflage, it doesn’t mean that the genome has the capability to completely transform into something physiologically completely different. Very generalized example: prokaryotic –> eukaryotic –> Walking around, functional, cognitive human beings

Tuna Ghost

what about when the speciation leads to a species that, while similar, can no longer procreate with the species that spawned it? Why are you under the impression that you are able to dictate the terms of what is and is not evolution?

Years ago, scientists were theorizing that birds were the descendants of dinosaurs. The old guard said that was ridiculous, that while the fossil record showed many similarities there would have to be some fossil showing a dinosaur with feathers for anyone to ever seriously entertain the notion, which would never happen because its a stupid idea. In fact, if one uses the scientific method, then one would have to find such a fossil for the theory to be tenable, but it’ll never happen, the old guard said, because its a stupid idea. Then they started finding fossils of dinosaurs with feathers.

ARGUE WITH ME

A mule cannot breed with anything.

As for dinosaurs, if that is right or not, the concept of it looking similar and it being directly related cannot be taken as fact.

Tuna Ghost

No one is talking about mules. No one mentioned mules. Why are you talking about mules. Mules are not an example of evolution.

It isn’t about looking similar. It couldn’t be because no one has ever seen a dinosaur. Is that really what you think the scientific method entails? Looking at stuff and deciding they’re similar?

Tuna Ghost

I am aware that species can transform into another species, but its still within the same genome, and 99% of the time its between closely related species.
Moving goalposts. Anyway, with each successive generation the species moves further and further away from the one that spawned it. So give that a billion years and yeah, you’re gonna get walking fish.

The leap from prokaryotic to eukaryotic was one of those 1% chances you imply in the sentence I quoted. Our own mitochondria is evidence of that happening; evidence we don’t really need because we’ve seen symbiotic relationships with single celled organisms develop.

Emberleo

Evolving from primate to human is a change in species(the smallest possible distinction in the animal order) whereas bacteria changing to fungus would mean an organism changing kingdoms, which is the most broad classification of organism. Two hugely different comparisons. You’re right, changing kingdoms is absolutely rediculous. So, basically you shot yourself in the foot with that argument considering it doesn’t relate at all to the evolution of primate to human.

Andrew

Changing kingdoms is ridiculous, but developing a new kingdom isn’t ridiculous at all given millions and millions of years, and given that kingdoms are just human defined terms in the fist place. And domain is the highest taxonomic rank (“most broad classification of organism”), not kingdom.

Also, humans (species) are primates (order).

Guesty

That’s a very apt summation under the circumstances you describe. And it is entirely true in situations where you have two -equal- “conceptual thought processes to chose from”.

Now, admittedly, I’m a biased person from a northern country, so this clearly factors into what I’ll say next, and so, I mean no disrespect towards you but I do take the liberty to affirm that it only holds if the two things are conceptually equal.
Really.
If both theories really were ‘liquids’, or, ‘suns’, or ‘flowcharts’ or any other basic object, then sure. But I’d say they’re not. They’re not simple objects that can be easily compared and assumed basically equal and turned into a choice between brand A and brand B of the same basic thing (cooked chicken vs fried chicken, still chicken), they’re overarching explanations based on introspectation and observation in relation to the universe –>based on wildly different approaches, basic assumptions and anxioms<– and so not just mere "thought processes" (as might be a cognitive endeavour or a heirarchial social system or a given attempt at economics). It's a… mildly false equivalency.

An explanainable system vastly mindbogglin and intriciately connected but observable and studiable and clearly 'present' and working on itself in what must be some mighty glorious feedback loops which we can observe, extrapolate and make assumptions off that generally hold true if tinkered with enough

is not inherently the same as

supernatural forces of any given kind, unobservable and unknowable and vast and never directly experienced yet casually directing growth through means unexplainable because it does.

See, being unable to explain parts of your theory in firm detail doesn't immediately render it void. And it doesn't mean that my inability to properly account for *every* chronological event for the last infinite span of time instantly puts my ideas on the same footing as yours.

Religion and science are both attempts at explaining where we come from and what the universe really is and what matter is and how X does Y to C when Z is out of town.

But I don't see anyone arguging with celestial mechanics and claiming that the movement of the solar systems planetary bodies is clearly not based on forces newtonian but obviously due to AMBULATORIANISM, God's Overarching Firmanent Design. (even if the particulars of black holes are still wobbly and some predictions are still strange and we haven't mapped THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE yet)

I don't see anyone looking at the test results of genetic sampling and arguing that clear, identifable and repeatable occurences that lead to blond hair or black eyes or darker skin cannot be explained by the dance of AC GT but must be becausse of TRAITISM, God's Overarching Bodytype Design (even if we havent't worked out every single genetic cross factor or mapped the genome of EVERY SINGLE SPECIES IN THE WORLD)

and so it just… boggles my mind that a remarkably elegant theory that seems to fit with the observations of the natural world, allows us to make certain predictions (no creature of THIS TYPE in THAT LAYER of the crust, genetic back tracking will reveal connections, people in areas of environment A will be different than people in area with environment B even if generally same species) is argued over so much and assumed basically equal because of missing links.

For instance, I fill a baloon with air. I then close my eyes and put my hands over my ears.I no longer know the exact state of the baloon. IS THE BALOON NOW A DRAGON?

… I don't know. There's a distinct missing link from my sensory input. And clearly such thriffles like continental drift, physics, mass, energy mechanics have nothing to do with it… because I'm a stupid human? To me that seems strange.

I mean, ultimately your statement isn't about evolution per se. It's about the complete and utter incapacity of basic human observation to explain the world because we're all so very stupid. It's… what? complete egalatarianism in relation to ideas? Phlogiston exists as well as fire and dormative faculties and fairies because damn, these fleshy sacks of meat just cannot comprehend anything! Solipsism rules, the outside universe is incomprehendabl vast and you will never, ever 'know' and theories based on observation is just as valid as random statements!

Okay, cool. I just think you're wrong, is all. Caps lock is because I can't quite get a handle on bolding or emphasising the text otherwise. I apologize if I come across as high nosed and superior, it's not quite my intention.

ARGUE WITH ME

I appreciate the response. We are not dumb as humans in academia such as “thriffles like continental drift, physics, mass, energy mechanics.” But we are real dumb as humans to think we can get a correct answer for creation from our knowledge. We are over assuming the implicitive power of current knowledge. Knowledge is ever expanding, and can easily undermine credible knowledge (as well as support it, it goes both ways). We are not as far progressed as we think in finding THE ANSWER. Therefore its clear that it is a theory. And evolution is true in aspects of species development, but its all assumptions and speculation when saying WE as intelligent humans came from something entirely different.

ARGUE WITH ME

Lol just thought of this… Athiest say Christians are chasing some fake santa clause Jesus. But aren’t athiests doing the same thing? Chasing some fake santa clause ‘missing link’. Its all relative really.

Humans are so stupid. I really can’t emphasize that enough.

“OMGGzz I can’t believe you just said humans are stupid look at how far we’ve come!”

How are we different than Rome? We got technology. Does that make humans smarter? Let me see if the person to left of me in this library knows how to create a working light bulb w/o instructions. Nope he can’t. We are just a bunch of dumb people. Just like the romans (whose empire lasted longer than the USA and still fell). We are the same as them, but now a days, we just have bigger toys that have bigger implications, that come with the detailed instructions of “squeeze here”. Holy shit were so smart. So edumucated. We are so far advanced than the roman people….ya right.

“But we got the internet!? We have access to so much information!”
Information that you don’t understand. Most don’t have the patience to actually learn the details, but instead opt to blindly believe the sparknoted generalizations that they read. And for those that do have the patience, sure your academia knowledge may go up, but your social human knowledge goes down. Its give and take, then we wonder why people are so much weirder now a days.

JaceD

Not too sure about your first statement but agree with the rest!

EDIT: Changed my mind…

ARGUE WITH ME

Note – I dont care if you agree with me, I feel my logic is still intact, no one has convinced me yet otherwise, everyone is still saying were smart, so smart that we can predict for 100% certainty where we came from. I’m saying were not that smart, and no current evidence supports one species transforming into a completely different kind of genome. So belief in it, takes that, belief. Just like religion. lol how does no one see that. At the basis of everything there is drop from evidence that supports itself when it gets to assumptive theories.

Mysophobe

“Everyone is saying that we’re…so smart that we can predict for 100% certainty where we came from.”

No. No one is saying that. Every theory is uncertain. Although some are more uncertain than others.

ARGUE WITH ME

then they both require faith, because they both aren’t 100% provable, there is always something you have to overlook which requires faith. Making both science and Christianity, a religion. Therefore, why would it be required to learn the orgin of creation via evolutionism which is a theory, to practice a real science that has proof.

JaceD

What science are you meaning?

Mysophobe

Your attempts to put the science of the bible on equal footing with actual science does both a gross disservice. Debating the “facts” in the bible versus the “religious faiths” in science is a pretty pointless exercise. You are looking for common ground where there is non. I think if you were to ask scientists who call themselves religious what they believe, you would find that they are in pursuit of understanding the true nature of God, not trying to reinforce the biblical version of Him. An atheist scientist would probably tell you the same thing, although in different terms, without a single thought towards disproving the bible. The bible simply isn’t the least bit pertinent to the actual pursuit of the best scientific explanation of a given subject. I’m not knocking the bible at all, it’s a wonderful collection of books with many great lessons. But we do ourselves a horrible disservice when we use it as a starting point in the pursuit of knowledge.

JaceD

I suggest we build a time machine and go back to the day of creation, or whatever, then we will know 100% where we came from. But we can’t do that? Then that is why people think about these things and come to logical conclusions (scientifically) We can’t know something that can’t be known – yet. Unlike religion there is physical proof that can back up the evolution theory; fossils of hominid humans that stretch through thousands of years tell a very sound story.

Where do you think we all come from? Or is it pointless to think about these things since we don’t know and the chances of us knowing may be slim?

Mysophobe

Again with the false equivalency, except this time with more breathless emotionalism. You seem to be asserting that humans are too stupid to completely understand the universe, therefore the pursuit of knowledge is pointless and fruitless. I mean this in the nicest possible way: Speak for yourself, stupid.

ARGUE WITH ME

Lol, the pursuit of knowledge actually has a point, and can bear many fruits.. all kinds.
Its stupid that we confuse our current knowledge with complete knowledge. Make money, help people, destroy people, spectate and understand our environment are all things we can do with knowledge.

To say that humans can correctly answer, and answer with complete credibility, the question of our origin is a little absurd. No human that has ever kept a written record has ever witnessed the changes that you are predicting to have happened. So no records. No witnesses. No proof. Just something that makes logical sense at appearance.. With what you have here, this would not even make it to court if it was some sort of trial.
— Same thing as religion if you ask me. No records (except the bible, controversial to people so we’ll just say no records), no proof, no witnesses. You just happen to believe in science. Not religion, thats your choice. Both are equal in unknowning (again). You have your belief, and its a belief because there is no concrete evidence suggesting that humans evolved. If evidence is found, its implications are controversial, which is the same with religion. And religion already claims that it is just a belief.
**Lets be clear, I’m not demeaning definite science, reality is always going to work as reality is expected to work. Thats science. That’s knowledge. We get that knowledge by examining reality.
Your argument is much different, your argument is saying that “ya we know this much information so we can assume that the humans/world were created this way”. I’m saying your assumption is equal in weight to relgious assumptions. There is no evidence, no witnesses, but your predicting the event of something that we have never experienced. Then you are believing that your intelligence lead you to the understanding of where we came from, but yet your evidence isnt qualified to make such an assumption. Which, if you read the sentence right before this sentence, you can see that it can be flipped onto a christian and they would still have the same lack of quality evidence as well.

Christians just know they are dumb humans, they admit that. People like you are worse because you cover up your dumbness with academia, and then make an assumption that can’t be warranted with the evidence available. Tricking millions of people with a personal assumptive decision. And they would believe too because of the academia you hide behind, academia that doesn’t warrant such an assumption, BUT the people don’t know that. Why don’t you just say the facts? We have no proof of evolution. We know species environmental adaptation is real. We know that our dna is similar to monkeys, but not identical. Anything else you can think of that you ACTUALLY have proof for. PROOF.

How would you know if this reality, the one that seems to work all perfect together, the one your getting all your knowledge from, the same one your getting assumptions from, wasn’t created by a God? What if it was just a perfect schematic planning of reality. And by scratching the surface learning of the perfect planning, your knowledge of reality would be bits and pieces, causing you to draw wrong assumptions. I feel like this is equally as plausible, and should have just as fair as a chance for belief as your assumptions are.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

you’re right! we should let everyone know that theories are not necessarily true!

You for example cannot for one second convince me of the theory of gravity. I mean, come on! its a THEORY!

… but in all seriousness.. i could probably make a lightbulb for you without instructions if you really are looking for one..

(but in real seriousness, this really has little to do with how “smart” we are, and how bloated the infrastructure is. Advanced does not equal Intelligent. We ARE “advanced”, because we are stupid enough to allow our realities to be dependent on a system that no single person can really fully conceptualize.)

ARGUE WITH ME

Im not saying that, for example, that the theory of gravity cannot be true because I can’t see it, so in fact it must be God keeping us from floating away. Im not saying that. What up goes down, theres proof right? Evolutionism of humans from something entirely different has no proof.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

This gets into the idea that theres faith in each really. But it all gets down into who thinks their superior in their faith: Creationists having faith in the bible(ideas at least ~2000ish years old and into the past) because its older and must have more ancient knowledge and truth, and evolutionists having faith in scientific study because its new(~150ish years in this case and on to the future) because its new and everything new must either better, or at least you can have faith that we’ll have the answer eventually.

The two will never agree because their basis for valuable knowledge is unidirectional and opposite rather than bidirectional. (IE the truth is truth no matter what direction you’re viewing it from)

((sorry for not being totally argumentative, i figure you got enough of that though))

ARGUE WITH ME

Thats what I’m trying to say. Both evolutionism and creationism require faith. Both are missing something; and that the something requires faith to over look. Neither is indefinitely true with 0% chance of being wrong. I would assume that would be the choice of life if you were a god creating the world.
You said get the answer “eventually”, hopefully it comes to fruition.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

Makes me think the whole damn left/right paradigm is really just a big argument between those with faith in the past vs those with faith in the future (cant we all just get along?)

ARGUE WITH ME

I wouldn’t classify it as faith in the past if concepts induced from it are applicable now and in the future

You said: “or at least you can have faith that we’ll have the answer eventually.”
— What happens if that does happen, we figure out everything there is needed to know. Wouldn’t the next question be, well where did it come from? Like the higgs-boson particle, if it exists and they find a “God” molecule that is the very base of all matter… It still doesn’t explain how the very first most basic particle was formed, how does it appear from nothing? We would know the function of the particle, we would probably figure out how to harness it for ourselves, but would we ever be able discover what created the molecule that is basis of all other molecules.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

Heh, my views are much in line with that movie, ill have to watch it.

I always sortof thought the thought process of subatomic physics was a little overhyped. Even the nicknamed “God” particle is I dunno… pretentious. Until we deal with the logical conception of infinite regression that materialism is working with, it will continue like this.

I think everyone just needs to read Godel Esher Bach repeatedly until they understand the Incompleteness theorem.

Anarchy Pony

No actually, there are mountains of proof. There are many discovered remains of pre-human apelike creatures, that are clrealy the evolutionary predecessors of modern humans.

“Australopithecus afarensis” simply means “Southern ape of the
Afar region.” Even the evolutionists have to admit the evidence points to the conclusion that Lucy and her family are nothing more than archaic apes. She was not called “Southern archaic human of the Afar region” because
the evidence does not warrant such a designation. To call
Australopithecus afarensis a human ancestor is drawing an unfounded
conclusion.”

“What about Lucy’s pelvis? Does Owen Lovejoy’s reconstruction of Lucy’s human-like pelvis prove she is a transitory figure on the human
evolutionary scale? In the first place, we must remember the words of Richard
Leakey and Roger Lewin, “Similar anatomy does not always indicate
evolutionary relationship.” In other words, fossilized skeletal
structure can often be a difficult
tool in determining species and its relationship to other species. It is particularly difficult to determine the species of the remains when those remains are crushed into tiny bits and bent out of shape. This was the state of Lucy’s pelvis when she was discovered. The innominate (thethree bones that make up the hip) were smashed into about forty pieces.

Lovejoy spent six months bending and pasting Lucy’s bones until they resembled a human pelvis. The accuracy of Lovejoy’s work was immediately called into question by his own colleagues. Naturalist Alberto Angela who worked with Johanson at Hadar, wrote that the reconstruction of
Lucy’s pelvis “was based on supposition.” Even
Lovejoy could not mutilate the evidence enough to enlarge the birth canal. It would not have been physically possible for Lucy to give birth to a large brained child. Giving birth to such a child would eventually be necessary if Australopithecus afarensis were going to mutate into
the next evolutionary stage. Johanson explains this dilemma as “the
sacrum (tail bone) had to narrow throughout human evolution while another of our adaptive landmarks, larger brains, evolved. Lucy’s
wider sacrum and shallower pelvis gave her a smaller,
kidney-shaped birth canal, compared to that of modern humans.

In other words, Lucy could only have given birth to an ape.”

Is this not valid?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jai-Ankers/100000395755973 Jai Ankers

But there is proof of evolution for other creatures, so evolution for humans would be the most logical conclusion, right?

Patrick

Here is another way in which you are wrong; Humans have amazing brain capacities so far untapped.
I believe we all have the capability to have vast amounts of both wisdom AND intelligence. BUT the only way to accomplish such a thing at a societal level is to have better education. Imagine if everybody on this planet was taught from childhood all the right things we need to know in order to make the best possible decisions more frequently throughout our lives. I know you are bringing examples of past history to support you arguement, but please try to remember that we have not yet seen an era of ‘renaissance’ education directed properly at our children. When society reaches an educated level where most everybody knows the merit in agreeing to disagree, and the choosing properly both inwardly and outwardly, that is when we will THRIVE.

Lastly, yes we humans may be stupid, but we are born that way. Doesn’t mean we have to live that way.

Perhaps Christianity was on to something when they teach about ‘original sin’. Being borne guilty because the rest of the world is guilty. Replace the word “guilty” with the word “stupid”. Of course, whoever made that up couldn’t go around telling stupid people how stupid they are LOL.

ARGUE WITH ME

lol well call me when that happens

Patrick

Ask yourself today how you can help make it happen for future generations. Avoid if you can the natural emotion of wanting to see all your hopes and dreams accomplished in this one lifetime. Its so unrealistic. What is real and productive is setting the foundation for generations to come.

ARGUE WITH ME

The thing is, the human flaw of personal satisfaction will always get in the way. It would be a good idea if we weren’t all flawed. Everyone wants personal satisfaction in their current life. So sacrificing personal satisfaction would not sit well with the other millions of americans. If we got an endless supply of energy (money/resources/tech) it could happen.

Patrick

Yep and when we are satisfied with resources, That’s when we will be able to start learning some lessons about…ourselves.

Chow5810

I mostly agree with you. however, I do think you are making a large assumption that most atheist’s believe in/or are looking for a missing link. as a poster above said, there (could be) a missing link for a reason.

ARGUE WITH ME

I’m not to sure I understand, if athiests don’t believe in God, then they are trying to explain the origin of humans as a sequential process in terms of current human knowledge, void of any god or master plan, but instead relying on mutational chance that has not ever been observed; sometimes confusing natural selection/genetic variation with complete physiological evolutionary change associated genome mutating into a completely different functional genome.
If atheists are not looking for the “missing link”, which would be considered what we “evolved” from to become the homo- genus, then what are they doing? They would just be living accepting that it’s a mystery.

http://www.facebook.com/BrooklynDHM.OG Ricky Yapkowitz

Mutations of organisms with their associated survival due to natural selection have most certainly been “observed.” For example, bacteria have mutated and been sorted out by natural selection, surviving as anti-biotic resistant, “new” strains; the Principle of Evolution.

ARGUE WITH ME

Have you read the comments on this board? Bacteria obtaining antibiotic resistance or whatever additional characteristic, whether if it is through picking up free dna, conjugation, or natural selection, the bacteria will still remain a bacteria. It’s genome won’t transform into a genome of anything similiar to the likes of a eukaryotic type. It will forever, and ever, remain a bacteria. It might have genetic variations, but these genetic variations will not code for complete physiological functional differences or structures, this has never been witnessed or recorded. There is no proof. Interspecies variation is common knowledge, it has proof. Natural selection has proof. Mutations have proof. But there is no proof, only speculation that we evolved from something non-human. There is no proof that any animal has permanently developed into what we would consider a genomically “new” animal after the process. It is very much a theory, when it comes to the origin of living organisms. It is not a theory that animals/and humans have genetic variabilities that can bring out hidden traits, because regardless, it stays the as the same animal, for that there is proof.

Mysophobe

It could be that atheists aren’t nearly as obsessed with disproving God’s existence as insecure Christians are with proving it. For the record, I would be insecure too in their shoes. When taken literally, the good book has been proven wrong about almost everything, scientifically speaking. Maybe time for a re-write?

ARGUE WITH ME

Scientifally speaking, whats wrong in the bible? Insecure christians? Is this not a website called disinfo, with the title discussing how they don’t understand why creationists would study biology if they can’t accept that we came from something that doesn’t resemble humans; so i feel this is the proper place to discuss this

Mysophobe

Let’s see…Genesis’ description of a flat earth surrounded by a solid dome decorated with the stars, sun and moon, the woman being created from the mans rib, the mountaintop-high flood and Noah’s ensuing logistical nightmare, “the whole earth being of one language” in 2400 BC, the Phillistines returning to Canaan 800 years too late. In Exodus, Moses birth story is suspiciously similar to that of Sargon, the Jews take 40 years to make a 3 week trip to Canaan and grow from a population of 75 to several million in a few hundred years, and God leads the Jews through the land of the Phillistines hundreds of years before the Pillistines live there. In Leviticus, God falsely proclaims hares and coneys to be ruminants and bats are birds. In Numbers, the Israelite population goes from 70 the 600,000 males in a few generations, god sends quails until they are “two cubits high upon the face of the earth”. There’s more if you want to hear it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad you’re here. You fascinate me.

chubby

it gets worse, check out the various apocrypha and legends of the jews

Tuna Ghost

There are several species that have been found between homo sapiens and their primate ancestors, by the way. The “missing link” is not missing, and it certainly isn’t fake.

ARGUE WITH ME

would you please direct me to something that discusses this discovery?

Paul

Quite a lot of waffle!
Creationist’s aren’t chasing ANYTHING, because they think everything’s been explained.
Science on the other hand holds nothing to be sacred, and if you have the evidence ANY of it’s principles can be challenged. Science itself evolves.

You are a dumb human.

ARGUE WITH ME

“Does no one even try anymore to integrate their “faith” with evolution?” — Exactly, if you really look at it, really try to make cross-connections, think outside the box, I think religion and science go together pretty well. I’m not talking about assumptions either, straight scientific facts do not stray far off from religion concepts. Religion and Science are trying to explain two sides of the same story.

Mysophobe

“If both are incomplete in their structure, this would conclude that they are both be equally wrong or equally right.”

Admittedly I’m a human and thus not very smart, but this sure looks like one of them there argumentative fallacies to me. And yeah, evolution is “just a theory”, sigh. And religion is just a fairy tale, not a scientific theory in this universe or any other.

Anonymous

what does it matter? Most doctors just dispense drugs anyways. Most diagnoses are just from flow charts along with the treatment. Surgery and setting bones, stitches etc…wont have any bearing on the doctors evolution/creation beliefs.

the last sentence was supposed to be flipped. The doctors beliefs wont have a bearing on the basic tasks of practicing medicine

Anonymous

what does it matter? Most doctors just dispense drugs anyways. Most diagnoses are just from flow charts along with the treatment. Surgery and setting bones, stitches etc…wont have any bearing on the doctors evolution/creation beliefs.

the last sentence was supposed to be flipped. The doctors beliefs wont have a bearing on the basic tasks of practicing medicine

Anonymous

what does it matter? Most doctors just dispense drugs anyways. Most diagnoses are just from flow charts along with the treatment. Surgery and setting bones, stitches etc…wont have any bearing on the doctors evolution/creation beliefs.

the last sentence was supposed to be flipped. The doctors beliefs wont have a bearing on the basic tasks of practicing medicine

ARGUE WITH ME

Lol just thought of this… Athiest say Christians are chasing some fake santa clause Jesus. But aren’t athiests doing the same thing? Chasing some fake santa clause ‘missing link’. Its all relative really.

Humans are so stupid. I really can’t emphasize that enough.

“OMGGzz I can’t believe you just said humans are stupid look at how far we’ve come!”

How are we different than Rome? We got technology. Does that make humans smarter? Let me see if the person to left of me in this library knows how to create a working light bulb w/o instructions. Nope he can’t. We are just a bunch of dumb people. Just like the romans (whose empire lasted longer than the USA and still fell). We are the same as them, but now a days, we just have bigger toys that have bigger implications, that come with the detailed instructions of “squeeze here”. Holy shit were so smart. So edumucated. We are so far advanced than the roman people….ya right.

“But we got the internet!? We have access to so much information!”
Information that you don’t understand. Most don’t have the patience to actually learn the details, but instead opt to blindly believe the sparknoted generalizations that they read. And for those that do have the patience, sure your academia knowledge may go up, but your social human knowledge goes down. Its give and take, then we wonder why people are so much weirder now a days.

ARGUE WITH ME

Lol just thought of this… Athiest say Christians are chasing some fake santa clause Jesus. But aren’t athiests doing the same thing? Chasing some fake santa clause ‘missing link’. Its all relative really.

Humans are so stupid. I really can’t emphasize that enough.

“OMGGzz I can’t believe you just said humans are stupid look at how far we’ve come!”

How are we different than Rome? We got technology. Does that make humans smarter? Let me see if the person to left of me in this library knows how to create a working light bulb w/o instructions. Nope he can’t. We are just a bunch of dumb people. Just like the romans (whose empire lasted longer than the USA and still fell). We are the same as them, but now a days, we just have bigger toys that have bigger implications, that come with the detailed instructions of “squeeze here”. Holy shit were so smart. So edumucated. We are so far advanced than the roman people….ya right.

“But we got the internet!? We have access to so much information!”
Information that you don’t understand. Most don’t have the patience to actually learn the details, but instead opt to blindly believe the sparknoted generalizations that they read. And for those that do have the patience, sure your academia knowledge may go up, but your social human knowledge goes down. Its give and take, then we wonder why people are so much weirder now a days.

ARGUE WITH ME

Lol just thought of this… Athiest say Christians are chasing some fake santa clause Jesus. But aren’t athiests doing the same thing? Chasing some fake santa clause ‘missing link’. Its all relative really.

Humans are so stupid. I really can’t emphasize that enough.

“OMGGzz I can’t believe you just said humans are stupid look at how far we’ve come!”

How are we different than Rome? We got technology. Does that make humans smarter? Let me see if the person to left of me in this library knows how to create a working light bulb w/o instructions. Nope he can’t. We are just a bunch of dumb people. Just like the romans (whose empire lasted longer than the USA and still fell). We are the same as them, but now a days, we just have bigger toys that have bigger implications, that come with the detailed instructions of “squeeze here”. Holy shit were so smart. So edumucated. We are so far advanced than the roman people….ya right.

“But we got the internet!? We have access to so much information!”
Information that you don’t understand. Most don’t have the patience to actually learn the details, but instead opt to blindly believe the sparknoted generalizations that they read. And for those that do have the patience, sure your academia knowledge may go up, but your social human knowledge goes down. Its give and take, then we wonder why people are so much weirder now a days.

ARGUE WITH ME

Lol just thought of this… Athiest say Christians are chasing some fake santa clause Jesus. But aren’t athiests doing the same thing? Chasing some fake santa clause ‘missing link’. Its all relative really.

Humans are so stupid. I really can’t emphasize that enough.

“OMGGzz I can’t believe you just said humans are stupid look at how far we’ve come!”

How are we different than Rome? We got technology. Does that make humans smarter? Let me see if the person to left of me in this library knows how to create a working light bulb w/o instructions. Nope he can’t. We are just a bunch of dumb people. Just like the romans (whose empire lasted longer than the USA and still fell). We are the same as them, but now a days, we just have bigger toys that have bigger implications, that come with the detailed instructions of “squeeze here”. Holy shit were so smart. So edumucated. We are so far advanced than the roman people….ya right.

“But we got the internet!? We have access to so much information!”
Information that you don’t understand. Most don’t have the patience to actually learn the details, but instead opt to blindly believe the sparknoted generalizations that they read. And for those that do have the patience, sure your academia knowledge may go up, but your social human knowledge goes down. Its give and take, then we wonder why people are so much weirder now a days.

Anonymous

I agree, we are left with two lackluster choices and if you dont pick one there is something wrong with you

Anonymous

I agree, we are left with two lackluster choices and if you dont pick one there is something wrong with you

Anonymous

I agree, we are left with two lackluster choices and if you dont pick one there is something wrong with you

Anonymous

I agree, we are left with two lackluster choices and if you dont pick one there is something wrong with you

Anonymous

Not too sure about your first statement but agree with the rest!

Rex Vestri

The aliens did it. Jeebus told me so.

Rex Vestri

The aliens did it. Jeebus told me so.

Jesusaurus

Why be a doctor in the first place, if you believe in god. Since having sickness or good health is gods will. If you truly believe, you know sickness is caused by demons. The sick need a priest to exorcise their demons, not a doctor to cure their bodies.

Jesusaurus

Why be a doctor in the first place, if you believe in god. Since having sickness or good health is gods will. If you truly believe, you know sickness is caused by demons. The sick need a priest to exorcise their demons, not a doctor to cure their bodies.

Dimitri

Just because you believe in god does not mean you believe in the christian god. Look up the word “Agnostic”. This is THE problem with “God”. People assume if you believe in a higher power it must be the god of the bible. Gimme a break and open your mind up a little more to the possibilities outside the box.

chris hunter

Agnostic does not mean you believe in god or gods. It means you don’t know, or think you can know one way or the other.

Butter Knife

While some theists many subscribe to religious doctrine that meets your description, most believe that to be a wholly inadequate understanding of things. I was once told a parable by a very devout evangelical Christian, one who believed absolutely in the power of prayer, creationism, divine will, the Rapture, etc. It went something like this:

A very pious, Christian man, watching the evening news, sees an urgent alert that his town will be flooded and everyone must evacuate. He decided that God would protect him from any flood, because he was so faithful, and decided to ignore the warning. Then it started to rain, and flood, and as the water rose he climbed to his roof in order to escape the water. One of his neighbors came to him in a fishing boat and offered to take him to safety, but he declined, insisting that God would save him. Exasperated and confused, his neighbor left the man on his roof. A while later a helicopter came to rescue him, but again he told them to leave, that God would save him, and eventually they too left him alone on his rapidly disintegrating rooftop. After a few more minutes, the house broke apart, the man was sucked into the water, and he drowned.

The man went to heaven, and received a short tour and meet and greet with the major players. God asked him if there was anything else he had questions about, and the man responded: “Just out of curiosity, why didn’t you save me from that flood?” God looked at him and replied “I sent a warning on the TV, your neighbor with a boat and a helicopter to save you. Why did you just sit on your roof?”

Your criticism of theism is no more valid than the criticisms some theists have of science.

ARGUE WITH ME

So your telling me..
If you have two conceptual thought processes to chose from, both of them not being fully complete, both having a missing piece of information. That one could be inherently more “correct” than the other, despite both missing information? That is a fallacy. You can’t know what is contained in the missing information, as well as knowing to what degree of understanding the missing information would unveil.
Unless you can say with 100% certainty of what one of the missing informations consists of, from the most minor details up to the most major, then you would be right. You would also be rich, and probably not on disinfo.

Simile: You got two glasses of different looking liquids. You are trying to make a cocktail, but you got to use one to put in the cocktail. You got a choice between the two liquids. One of them, is completely safe but has unknown chemical in it that will do no harm. The other glass of the liquid substance has a another unknown substance in it but we are told is a “bad” chemical. You don’t know what it is. You can’t tell if the unknowns are in any drink. You don’t know what will happen if you drink it. You got a choice between the two to put in your cocktail. Both have a missing piece of information, which is neither liquid says it’s contents and both are indistinguishable between the two added chemicals; as well you don’t know the effects if you happen to drink the “bad” liquid. Both are identical in unknowing, but different in color appearance. Just like religion and science. If I was helping you make the decision as to which one to add, Your argument would say that you are going to pick the one that looks most appealing, in which you would try to convince me that your selection doesn’t have the “bad” in it because it is the most complimentary to the drink and that I should drink it too. You are thoroughly convinced. When in reality, it is a 50/50 chance that either drink has the bad chemical in it, despite the appearance. Your choice wouldn’t be inherently more correct because of appeal. It turns out that the “bad” chemical is cyanide, the other is sugar. The missing information for both drinks has the potential to kill you, both unknowns at the time are equally weighted in importance. Because both are unknown, one choice is just a dangerous as the other choice, there is no difference, they are equal at the time of choice because you don’t know the contents of what is unknown. Just because you say that this drink looks more appealing so it should be the favorite of our choices would be logically wrong and you would not be taking the possible range of significance of the other unknown (like religion) into consideration. An unknown of the least favorite option is just as equal in importance as the unknown in the favorite option. And one of either option has the possibility to be what you didn’t expect, like cyanide. You will never know what you will find. The only smart decision would be to say I’m not drinking either glasses – which confirms that they are both equally wrong or equally right depending on how you look at it. The incomplete “knowledge structure” (ingredients) of the drink would lead one to say I’m not drinking either drink because I can’t possibly know the correct decision until I die
Thus…
“If both are incomplete in their structure, this would conclude that they are both be equally wrong or equally right.” would be correct

And for fairy tales, I can honestly say Iv never seen a fairy tale predict the re-establishment of an entire country…ever.

Mysophobe

Again with the false equivalency, except this time with more breathless emotionalism. You seem to be asserting that humans are too stupid to completely understand the universe, therefore the pursuit of knowledge is pointless and fruitless. I mean this in the nicest possible way: Speak for yourself, stupid.

Anarchy Pony

Helmets on for the flame war kids.
Also, how exactly does evolution defy thermo-dynamics?

Anarchy Pony

Helmets on for the flame war kids.
Also, how exactly does evolution defy thermo-dynamics?

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

It comes from the wrong assumption that the earth is a closed system. IE it would break thermodynamics along the lines of using more energy than was put in it or something (you know, neglecting the constant huge bombardment of energy from the sun)

Anarchy Pony

You mean the sacred rays of Sol? Who blesses us with the energy we need to animate our our material forms.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

heh well with the “christians as son worshipers” theory, that explains creationism pretty cleanly

Anarchy Pony

But they blaspheme the sacred union of Sol and Terra, and pray to their false desert god that masquerades as a sky god and the do nothing messiah that they will wait forever in vein for and acts as an enabler to the patriarchal abuse of the “father”. And they proclaim heresy of domination over the Earth, the skin of our Great Mother, and arrogance of human superiority to the rest of our living family. They consign our brothers and sisters to extinction with their vicious heresy, they are not to be trusted or accepted so long as they proclaim such arrogant and savage notions.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

you sir, are awesome

Anarchy Pony

I try.

chubby

look up syntropy

DeepCough

If you are a physician who works in the medical industry and rejects, on the basis of faith, the works of Darwin, which is responsible for the expansion of biology for the past 100 years, then you are a fucking retard. Yep, no two ways about it, because dogmatism like that is the bane of true science, and that very thing will bring us to a new Dark Age ruled by religious technarchs.

DeepCough

If you are a physician who works in the medical industry and rejects, on the basis of faith, the works of Darwin, which is responsible for the expansion of biology for the past 100 years, then you are a fucking retard. Yep, no two ways about it, because dogmatism like that is the bane of true science, and that very thing will bring us to a new Dark Age ruled by religious technarchs.

ARGUE WITH ME

fallacy: darwin in this discussion is used for a belief that was derived off his work, which is the idea that we all came from something that is not human. Darwin was a very very smart man and had great contributions. It was the people who reviewed his work, who then assumed the genetic variations that are presently seen, could have, at one time, been used to transform DNA into whole different species or genome.

DeepCough

Why do you creationists keep leaving out the fact that “natural selection” is anything but random, as the SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT determines what survives and what doesn’t?

ARGUE WITH ME

ok…so still… your not helping your self. Have you seen humans come from something that is not human? Why do you keep leaving that out?Has any species present in another genome ever sprout randomly from a completely different genome with the advantages of the new genome? You ever see an armor plated duck ever come out a rhinos vagina? Wouldn’t that provide an advantage for living for the duck? Show me something that shows the evolution of something that is sub-human into something that is human. Natural selection has to do with the species that are present in the environment, and assists select species in survival due to the environmental conditions leading to reproduction of animals that have the traits of another animal that is CLOSELY related giving them an advantage for survival. So how do you get humans? Natural selection does not induce radical transformations of something into something completely different. Natural selection doesn’t account for our cognitive advantage over every other animals who we would be related too.

DeepCough

Care to explain this duck-beaver thing that lives in Australia called the “Platypus,” motherfucker?

P.S. Ever read about the effects of omega fatty acids and entheogens on the “human” brain?

P.P.S. The word “human” is not a scientific term: the word is derived from the word “humus” which means “ground, earth” as in “humans are earthly beings.” And it would really interest you to know that the word “soul,” in the original Gothic, meant “belonging to the sea” since the Goths believed that’s where life started. So even the Goths could accept evolution in their own way, now why the fuck can’t you?

ARGUE WITH ME

If you’d give me a reason that is sound in its argument than I would have no problem thinking it over on what I should do with it. But you haven’t given me anything except some pictures of animals.
So there is no way that the platypus could just be its own animals? I can explain it. Its called a platypus. Its an animal. Its own type of animal. Not a beaver. Not a duck. But a platypus. Put a million beavers, and a million ducks in a room, give them some sort of aphrodisiac, or just transfer genes manually, and see if you end up with any platypus’s as a result.

P.S.S. If I was goth I still wouldn’t believe it…BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO PROOF. lol. what don’t you get? Your blindly following what people, but go ahead, mate a duck and a beaver. See what happens.
O if the platypus was the latest form of evolution, then I can’t wait for the rhino duck combo

Mysophobe

Claiming that a layperson’s inability to accurately describe a complex scientific theory somehow proves your case is the height of intellectual laziness on your part. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The information you seek is out there, if you really want to challenge your entrenched beliefs. This site seems to pull it together nicely, although it’s been hacked by fundies. It even has creationist rebuttals.

I gather that your alternative theory is that humans and every other species on earth appeared, as is, and out of the fucking blue? I’d like to see some evidence of that.

DeepCough

You can’t have hard evidence or proof for faith-based explanations.

ARGUE WITH ME

thats why its called a belief, thats the basis of religion, thats the seperating factor. Do you believe that there is a master schematic of the universe created by an all-knowing figure that we don’t have evidence for? Or do you believe what humans have to say about how it happened when they themselves can’t prove it, which as well requires faith. Its a choice. Even the limited evidence that scientists claim they have, has many logical fallacies and assumption jumps to saying it’s “our ancestor.” It will be, and forever be a choice in beliefs. Neither will be provable.

DeepCough

You’re just cherry-picking logical fallacies because you can’t stand the fact that people don’t worship your primitive deity. All apologies that you can’t live in the 21st century like the rest of us Hominids are doing.

ARGUE WITH ME

Ya alright (sarcasm ensuing) : Because that last comment I made must have made no sense at all

ARGUE WITH ME

So if the higgs-boson particle was found, the basis of all elements, that should dissprove God again? But so how did the very basis of all elements get there? Did it just appear “out of the fucking blue?” If you look at the big bang theory, where did all the elements, all reality come from? What initated the big bang? They have some explanations out there, but then how did whatever was before the big bang get there? Must have been just a bunch of free energy or extra dimension crashing into each other. So how did the energy get there? Did it evolve? I put my money on it came out of the fucking blue. How does nothing come from something? This has yet to be explained

Mysophobe

I thought we were talking about evolution. That’s really at the heart of it, isn’t it? If science can’t explain everything with 100% certainty, then in your mind all science is in doubt. Informed skepticism is usually a good thing. Skepticism is one of the basic foundations of the scientific method. Skepticism in the hands of a willfully misinformed individual, on the other hand, is just sad. I’ll admit, I have faith in the scientific method. I understand that a contrary theory, however unpopular, would get a fair shake if it was based on solid evidence and sound reasoning. The peer review process essentially begs for up-and-comers to knock down established theories with impunity. Shit, it even happened to Darwin’s Origin. I’m not a scientist, that’s not my job. Nor is it my job to explain to you the deeper meaning behind the latest scientific discoveries. That’s religion’s job. Where religion goes wrong is when it tries to fix the facts to fit it’s own agenda.

ARGUE WITH ME

Where are you getting these assumptions that religions is trying to fix the facts to fit it’s own agenda? Religion completely agrees with facts. It doesn’t say in the bible gravity is fake, that God holds everyone down with his mind. Its a scientific theory, that went through a scientific process, and is acceptable. There is proof of what goes up comes down. There is no proof intra-genome evolution. Which is the typical evolution origin argument. Regardless of any Lucy and its controversy, there is still nothing explaining how that came to be. When was the step that piece of organic nothing grew a functional head? Thats not possible. I 100% complete definitive science, no skepticism here. Just skeptical about claims that cannot be proven, and we are bashed on our heads by supposed academics until we finally make the belief-leap of if inter-species mutations exist, then we must have an origin from intra-genomic mutations.
There are so many developmental fallacies in this idea of evolution in the idea of nothing to something functional. Yet everyone believes. How would have an organic nothing even fathom the creation of a functional head? What is giving it this idea that this is what it needs to do to survive.

Tuna Ghost

Religion completely agrees with facts

Tell that to Galileo.

Andrew

“Religion” is plural, and they don’t all agree on the facts.

Mysophobe

Actually, the bible’s description of the observable celestial effects of gravity is pretty much completely wrong. A flat earth at the center of the universe surrounded by a dome embedded with the celestial bodies? C’mon. Why does god need to lie about the nature of his own creation? For an example of a religious person fixing the facts to suit their agenda, look no further than a guy downthread attempting to distort the fossil record for his own ends. Not to mention that the strawman version of evolution you seem to be arguing against exists only in your imagination. How many times do you have to be told that evolution is a painfully slow process before you stop demanding to see an example of radical observable changes in a single generation. If that’s really what you think evolutionary theory purports, then you can declare victory and go home. You win. That particular “evolutionary” theory is just silly and not worth defending. Let me try to explain to you how it really works in a way you can understand. You’ve heard people say that they can trace their heredity back say 10 generations, right? Would you agree that the current generation would appear, on average, slightly taller, more lanky, more tolerant of lactose, more naturally resistant to malaria, generally genetically dissimilar in many, less observable ways than his oldest known ancestor? Now take that same 10 generation timeframe and multiply it by 20,000 and imagine the changes you’d observe, even in a relatively static environment such as ours. Do you really think this distant descendant would look so similar to contemporary humans that we could be called the same species? Do you really think we could successfully mate together? Now imagine that we manage to seed a distant planet identical to earth with human life in the near future. Without contact with each other, do you really think these two human groups would closely resemble each other after several million years of independent evolution? This is evolution. Minute changes over hundreds of thousands of generations, not sudden changes in a single generation. This is what everyone else here is talking about. If you really want to make a case against something, you should first understand it. Unfortunately, this may require you visiting some science websites instead of religious ones.

Andrew

Evolution in no way disproves the existence of God. It only disproves literal interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis.

Calypso_1

And behold He hath reached out His Noodly Appendage into the minds of Believers, teaching them the Ways of His earthly Avatars. And through their Love for Brother Monkey and Sister Cat they hath made GlowKitty. And He was pleased.

DeepCough

Okay, I’m done dancing around the issue, now it’s time to deliver the fatal blow. We modern humans can trace our lineage back to Australopithecus africanus, the most direct ancestor we have that goes all the way back to the Pliocene era (2-3 million years), and from that species of Hominid (Great Ape), we humans gradually evolved to Homo sapiens sapiens, and scientist KNOW this, because of TRANSITION FOSSILS–specifically, the bones–that demonstrate the development of us Hominids over the aeons. If ever there was a reason why biologists think we humans are similar to Apes, it’s because of these things called ANALOGOUS STRUCTURES. Using their common sense, scientists just plain notice that, “Hey, maybe we humans hail from this Family of Animalia.” And you know who would agree with this: an Austrian friar (Christian monk) by the name of GREGOR MENDEL, who is known as the father of GENETICS. Now ain’t that just fucking wild, a staunchly religious man being such an avid scientist? But the truth is, he had to work at it, it didn’t just come to him by way of divine revelation, and that is apparently your biggest problem: you can’t figure this shit out yourself. You keep on reaching this stop-gap in your brain that prevents you from processing this information. You basically PROVED my point from the beginning that, “The people who hate Darwin the most are the religious fundamentalists,
who are cultural absolutists, that believe their view of the world is
truly righteous and all others are false.”

ARGUE WITH ME

If you actually read my responses instead of trying to think of your next unfounded pre-teen girl type insult at me we might get some where. Im sorry I have to keep reposting this next party, I just don’t think you have the intelligence to read a few posts up and see if it applies to your thoughts:

” “Australopithecus afarensis” simply means “Southern ape of the Afar region.” Even the evolutionists have to admit the evidence points
to the conclusion that Lucy and her family are nothing more than archaic apes. She was not called “Southern archaic human of the Afar region” because
the evidence does not warrant such a designation. To call
Australopithecus afarensis a human ancestor is drawing an unfounded
conclusion.”
“What about Lucy’s pelvis? Does Owen Lovejoy’s reconstruction of Lucy’s human-like pelvis prove she is a transitory figure on the human evolutionary scale? In the first place, we must remember the words of Richard
Leakey and Roger Lewin, “Similar anatomy does not always indicate
evolutionary relationship.” In other words, fossilized skeletal
structure can often be a difficult tool in determining species and its relationship to other species. It is particularly difficult to determine the species of the remains when those remains are crushed into tiny bits and bent out of shape. This was
the state of Lucy’s pelvis when she was discovered. The innominate (the
three bones that make up the hip) were smashed into about forty pieces.
Lovejoy spent six months bending and pasting Lucy’s bones until they resembled a human pelvis. The accuracy of Lovejoy’s work was immediately called into question by his own colleagues. Naturalist Alberto Angela
who worked with Johanson at Hadar, wrote that the reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis “was based on supposition.” Even Lovejoy could not mutilate the evidence enough to enlarge the birth canal. It would not have been physically possible for Lucy to give birth to a large brained child. Giving birth to such a child would eventually be necessary if Australopithecus afarensis were going to mutate into
the next evolutionary stage. Johanson explains this dilemma as “the
sacrum (tail bone) had to narrow throughout human evolution while another of our adaptive landmarks, larger brains, evolved. Lucy’s wider sacrum and shallower pelvis gave her a smaller, kidney-shaped birth canal, compared to that of modern humans.
In other words, Lucy could only have given birth to an ape.”

Is this not valid?

DeepCough

I don’t know why you’re bringing up Australopithecus afarensis (all the while calling me the illiterate one while you’re at it) when I was talking about Australopithecus AFRICANUS, the ancestor that would lead to the Homo genus, of which we modern humans are a part.. Now, after all this butthurt bitching about how you don’t like evolution–because it don’t make no sense at all to you–how about you try to argue for me how your choice of deity made everything in a snap of its fingers? Oh, wait, you can’t do that, because your god works in “mysterious ways,” right?

ARGUE WITH ME

“A reasonable assessment of the fossils of Australopithecus africanus and her “older” cousin, Afarensis,
is that they were no more than an extinct subspecies of the ape family.
Modern apes differ anatomically. For example, a gorilla is not
anatomically the same as an orangutan. Why do we assume that ancient
apes are any different? Zoologists do
not consider variation in skeletal structure in modern apes as an
indication that one ape is more highly evolved than another.”

australopithecus afarensis evolved into an
australopithecus africanus, which evolved into an australopithecus
boisei, which evolved into homo-habillis, which evolved into
homo-erectus…
so…brings me too…
“Even Lovejoy could not mutilate the evidence enough to enlarge the birth
canal. It would not have been physically possible for Lucy to give
birth to a large brained child. Giving birth to such a child would
eventually be necessary if Australopithecus afarensis were going to
mutate into
the next evolutionary stage. Johanson explains this dilemma as “the sacrum
(tail bone) had to narrow throughout human evolution while another of
our adaptive landmarks, larger brains, evolved. Lucy’s wider sacrum and
shallower pelvis gave her a smaller, kidney-shaped birth canal, compared
to that of modern humans.
In other words, Lucy could only have given birth to an ape.”

As well as this still doesn’t resolve, how the most basic unit of life first starts to grow a head, a brain, reproductive systems ect.? How were we to evolve into anything human like if the reproductive system takes to time evolve?

DeepCough

It seems to me that you are hung up on this label of “human,” and that shows to me what a fucking retard you are. You insist too much that “Homo sapiens sapiens” is just “too human” to have come from a mere “animal” like an Australopithecene, which means you probably beleive that a deity or a Designer created us EXACTLY the way we are now 10,000 years ago.

Well, I hate to break it to you, Jack, but evolution is NOT a SUDDEN PROCESS, okay? That is why the age of the Earth is important in the argument of natural selection: it takes time–AEONS–for organisms to develop, because no one–NOTHING–comes out of thin air instantaneously. Now how could you possibly keep trying to debunk evolution on a logical basis without considering that first? Ever hear the adage that “Rome wasn’t built in a day?” Because it wasn’t–it took seven centuries before the fall of the Res Publica Romana, and this is just one way you can apply the argument of evolution outside of a biological context.

Speaking of biology, are you even the least bit familiar with the birthing process, because, chances are, you’re a Christian fundamentalist who abhors sex and all that is attached to it (because your overbearing prick of a god said so). You see, when human babies are birthed from human vaginas, their heads are NOT perfectly round shaped like mine is and yours might be, since birthing something like that could break the baby’s skull or the female’s pelvis, which is already built for such an act. When a baby comes out, for a while, it look like a conehead (refer to pic). Seriously, every person on the planet who has been birthed vaginally had a misshapen head, because that’s the easiest way for the baby to slide out. You really, really need to get over the fact that we humans are perfect when we are anythiing but, because no deity in the entirety of human history ever desired that for humans in the first place. And, if you read the article “Unintelligent Design” from Discover Magazine, you’ll find an intriguing argument that states it was viruses that helped to determine the course of life here on Earth, as they are rogue pieces of RNA and DNA that test which lifeforms have the best genes suited for survival. If you still think there is a god or Designer after that article, then you will have to assume that such a being is certainly not benevolent: rather, it is clearly a mad scientist.

Essentially the assumption (that which you say we cannot make) is that if we can get a different species in a few decades like my lizard example, then in one set of decades a species can change ever so slightly, then do it again every couple of decades until its been such a long period of time that you cannot in good faith call the old thing and the new thing the same species (or order or phylum). In all honesty though, it seems silly to try to name a species for every slight difference between every iteration of change.

The standard counter argument to this of course is the confusion over the age of the earth.

I sidestep this issue with the belief that evolutionary “speed”(for lack of a better word) is variable, in a manner that the age of the earth is effectively unimportant. It makes sense to me that catostrophic and environmental chaos increases the “speed” of evolution.

This is also a perfect counter to the question “why don’t we see much/any evolution around in the time since evolution was conceptualized?” This is because we are living in an evolutionary stagnant age, especially humans. War was the biggest form of chaos and catastrophe for the human species, and that has been removed from the lives of people in the US especially. We’ve also lived in relatively mild climate, not too many global events effecting our climate (well theres the climate debate but thats a different animal).

I have no “proof” that you’re looking for, only reasoned arguments.(well in the video, the first couple of missing links in the infinite chain are real)

The reason people get so defensive about evolution is that its the only way we can have faith that the future of life goes on in the scientific worldview. Without beneficial change, there is only decline, and people have been fed the “nothing but decline” mythos from christianity for a long time, and its making people sick.

Very well thought out. I still have a few qualms. Lets say
we have a variety of pre-evolved organisms, and they are in the same
generalized location (enviromental consistency despite weather variety), then
wouldn’t they all devolpe very similar traits? If natural selection aims at the
progressive movement of organisms evolving into something that will make them
dominant in survival in their environment, thus macroevolving, then wouldn’t
all the organisms in the area, over all the billions of years, evolve into the
“lowest common denominator that ensures the highest chance of survial?”

The subject of this article is why should people who believe in creationism be studying biology? And without proof, then why is it being cemented as a requirement? I don’t doubt, that without beneficial change there is only decline. This isn’t beneficial change, this is an assumption that humans weren’t predominantly put on this earth as superior beings. Since there is no proof, then how could we advance with that type of knowledge? How does that benefit? Im fully in support of learning, modifying, taking advantage of what we have for beneficiary effects.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

“all the organisms in the area, over all the billions of years, evolve into the

‘lowest common denominator that ensures the highest chance of survial?'”Well i suppose a simple answer to that would be to appeal to the bias of variety that evolution has. If everything evolved to the lowest common denominator, then the first thing that learned how to consume or be resistant to it, would begin to dominate, then the same cycle would continue.

The better answer though, is that anyone (myself included) that tries to claim they know all the ins and outs of how evolution would work is a fool. In other words: I don’t know// further study needed.

And don’t get me wrong, I actually think its a good thing to have people challenge these ideas. If they’re right: great; if their wrong: then evolutionary theory is strengthened. I actually was searching for(but couldnt find unfortunately) a video on paleontological refutation of the fundamental theories of evolution that wasn’t soured with “why aren’t monkeys in zoos turning into humans today” nonsense.

ARGUE WITH ME

No trust me, I appreciate normal thought out responses. I understand what you were saying about one becoming dominant first would continue since it is the first of the bunch. My rebuttal then, would be why haven’t all animals developed legs, fins, gils, lungs, strength, and stealth? since being ambi-functional (i dont know the word) would be the ultimate lowest common denominator increasing chance for survival and having more than enough time to develop over the millions of years. But yet, over these years, we have these animals who are fit with being at the bottom of the food chain. I’m sure sparrows are thinking its unfair as shit that eagles can just snatch them up

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

In no way intending to be a copout, the reason is because its complicated. What i mean is, that from the evolutionary perspective there is no “best” what works for one group wont work for another. Even if it could, a tree would never evolve a foot because it would never be useful (well except maybe to kick squirrels for fun).

One example is a sea squirt. This has a dual life cycle, the first stage it swims around using its functional nervous system consuming its food etc. In the 2nd stage in its life cycle it implants on a rock, and the first thing it does is digest its own nervous system brain and all, simply because it is unnecessary for life.

It is so complicated that there is no single direction for “better”. According to evolution theory, believing in the penultimate superiority of humanity is naive(in both the sense that it is as good as it is going to get, or that it is the best direction life could have gone). I do however believe that we have some superiority just as luck would have it, and if we aren’t careful what is most beneficial for “survival” will involve giving up our gifts of intelligence, wisdom, dexterity, grace, etc.

ARGUE WITH ME

But see, that is a generalization that it eats it’s own brain, simply because its unnecessary for life. There is a reason that it does, it serves a function, whether for itself, or for some predator. See, my problem is, I don’t see the logic in after all these years of evolution, that they remain that way. What is holding them back from evolving to eat fish to increase it’s energy intake/ developmental process? I know that there is no single direction for better, but what is determining this sort of predation heirarchy? What is determining what can prey on others, and most importantly how far the prey can evolve in order to not become preyed on anymore? If we were all to be evolving, I feel like there would be a much greater need for many animals to evolve in a way to eliminate their own predation, or to take advantage of the entire environment around them (as in being able to swim, walk, and fly)? We have capabilities in our brain that some can argue are smarter than computers, and to think some how we just arrived with this super-powered brain. If that leads to increased chance of survival, I would feel at least one of all the species would have developed a brain that matches the cognitive benefits that we have as humans.

Tuna Ghost

Show me something that shows the evolution of something that is sub-human into something that is human.

You mean like the Fossil Record? The one that shows Australopithicus anamensis leading to Homo sapiens?

ARGUE WITH ME

” “Australopithecus afarensis” simply means “Southern ape of the
Afar region.” Even the evolutionists have to admit the evidence points
to the conclusion that Lucy and her family are nothing more than archaic
apes. She was not called “Southern archaic human of the Afar region”
because the evidence does not warrant such a designation. To call Australopithecus afarensis a human ancestor is drawing an unfounded conclusion.”

“What about Lucy’s pelvis? Does Owen Lovejoy’s reconstruction of Lucy’s
human-like pelvis prove she is a transitory figure on the human
evolutionary scale? In the first place, we must remember the words of
Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, “Similar anatomy does not always indicate evolutionary relationship.” In other words, fossilized skeletal structure can often be a difficult
tool in determining species and its relationship to other species. It is
particularly difficult to determine the species of the remains when
those remains are crushed into tiny bits and bent out of shape. This was
the state of Lucy’s pelvis when she was discovered. The innominate (the
three bones that make up the hip) were smashed into about forty pieces.

Lovejoy spent six months bending and pasting Lucy’s bones until they
resembled a human pelvis. The accuracy of Lovejoy’s work was immediately
called into question by his own colleagues. Naturalist Alberto Angela
who worked with Johanson at Hadar, wrote that the reconstruction of
Lucy’s pelvis “was based on supposition.” Even
Lovejoy could not mutilate the evidence enough to enlarge the birth
canal. It would not have been physically possible for Lucy to give birth
to a large brained child. Giving birth to such a child would eventually
be necessary if Australopithecus afarensis were going to mutate into the next evolutionary stage. Johanson explains this dilemma as “the sacrum (tail bone) had to narrow throughout human evolution
while another of our adaptive landmarks, larger brains, evolved. Lucy’s
wider sacrum and shallower pelvis gave her a smaller,
kidney-shaped birth canal, compared to that of modern humans.

In other words, Lucy could only have given birth to an ape.”

Is this not valid?

Mysophobe

Being that it’s apparently lifted directly from a creationist website and referenced by no reputable source, no, it’s probably not valid. I could find no corroborating narrative regarding “Lucy” from a non-creationist source. Angela and Johanson appear to express no such doubts in their later work. In fact, later similar fossil discoveries confirmed that Lovejoy’s find was indeed a distinct transitional species. Get with the times.

ARGUE WITH ME

“The reconstructed pelvis of the Australopithecine (the genus preceding
Homo) dubbed Lucy, who is about 3.5 million years old, indicates that
she could have delivered a baby the size of a newborn chimpanzee, report
anthropologists Robert Tague and C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent (Ohio) State
University. But giving birth would not have been as easy for Lucy as
some researchers have suggested, said Tague last week at the annual
meeting of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in Washington,
D.C. ”

If you are stuck in this evolutionary stage for so long, this would mean a much less chance for reproduction, less chance for survival of the baby, less chance for survival of the mother, not to mention later in the article it says that if it did have a baby, it would require extensive care, that of a normal baby, after the delivery. This doesn’t sound just a little bit like “come on how can we get this lucky” to survive this evolutionary step as a species?

Tuna Ghost

No, it sounds like some researchers claimed giving birth would have been easy and some others suggested it would have been not as easy as those researchers claimed. In fact, that is the literal definition of the sentence you quoted.

You are really, really reaching now, aren’t you?

Mysophobe

I know, it’s disappointing that Lucy could only give birth to a baby Lucy, rather than some Lucy-human hybrid. That is putting a lot of pressure on her though, asking that she be solely responsible for birthing yet another immediate transitional species. Seriously though, 3.5 million years is a looooong time. 220,000 sixteen year long generations. There’s no rush. And who says the human brain is required to evolve before the body does? I think you’re also reading in a bit with the Tague quote: “Giving birth would not have been as easy for Lucy as some researchers have suggested” is kind of a meaningless statement, and does not imply that birthing was particularly difficult, or support your implication that it and the lack of a human sized brain indicates low survivability of the species. You must realize that it’s amazing we found just one example of a Lucy 3.5 million years later. There must have been thousands of them at least. Besides, who says Lucy is the standard bearer of her species?

Tuna Ghost

I was about to note the extreme invalidity of this, but Mysophobe beat me to it.

Calypso_1

There is wide variation in pelvic shape (anteroposterior diameter/ width of pubic arch, transverse diameter, etc.) in human females. Of the four pelvic shapes, two (which account for 33% of females) have poor prognosis for vaginal birth because the fetal head cannot adapt to the birth canal. Thus we have C-sections, and in the past we had high infant/mother mortality rates.

Perhaps Lucy just didn’t have birth’n hips.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

(Got too squished. moved up to here.)

I dont know the why, only some of the how. The only thing I can really say is that i find fallacy in the general alpha-dog viewpoint of evolution. I believe theres more to evolutionary mechanics than simple random mutation and natural selection(catastrophe/chaos as an example). In this sense i don’t see all life forms end goal just trying to be the one to eat the next bigger fish. Alternatively in the strictly natural selection sense, not having enough food is not the only way a species can fail.

ARGUE WITH ME

I don’t see all life forms end goal just trying to be the one to eat the next bigger fish either. I feel that their end goal is to have maximum efficacy at survival. And it happens, that you can’t reach that level until you are at the top of the food chain, so it would be a side-effect if you will for the need to eat the next bigger fish in order to increase the chance for survival. The most basic instinct is the desire to survive, is it not?

Mysophobe

Instinct and desire have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. An organism doesn’t will itself to have genetically improved offspring. It’s all about random genetic mutation. Being at the top of the food chain in no way implies greater survivability. Actually, the opposite is probably the case. Recall that vegetarian rodents survived a cataclysm that wiped out the mighty t-rex. Why are lions threatened with extinction while their “less evolved” prey are thriving?

MindAtPlay

Isnt it a good thing that more and more religious people study those things? If evolution is convincing enough as a theory, which it seems to be to a large part, it will probably convince more creationist students than the opposite way around. Do you have to conform to the current models to be allowed to study them? Where is the great threat and where is the problem with science students who dont blindly agree? If the problem is creationism lobbyists I think in the long run this will serve the rationalists more, its basicaly a trojan horse, if the religious communities take on evolution with creationism they will probably have alot of kids doubting religion in a few generations. And beside that this will probably force the science community to defend its standpoint to outsiders which must be a good thing for science right? All the gaps in the theories ill become clearer when spotted by nonconformists. I dont know to me it seems like a good thing. If science can only handle conformists it makes me a bit skeptical of it.

MindAtPlay

Isnt it a good thing that more and more religious people study those things? If evolution is convincing enough as a theory, which it seems to be to a large part, it will probably convince more creationist students than the opposite way around. Do you have to conform to the current models to be allowed to study them? Where is the great threat and where is the problem with science students who dont blindly agree? If the problem is creationism lobbyists I think in the long run this will serve the rationalists more, its basicaly a trojan horse, if the religious communities take on evolution with creationism they will probably have alot of kids doubting religion in a few generations. And beside that this will probably force the science community to defend its standpoint to outsiders which must be a good thing for science right? All the gaps in the theories ill become clearer when spotted by nonconformists. I dont know to me it seems like a good thing. If science can only handle conformists it makes me a bit skeptical of it.

DeepCough

Thing is, you don’t have to tow the party line in science if you have the SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND STRONG PROOF to contradict it.

Derp

Evolution is a proven theory. Creationism is not. That is all there is to it.

Stumage

A student not accepting a theory is fine, because well it’s just that, A theory. Now to be a good scientist, using the scientific method, for scientific purposes, through observation and analysis a good teacher should inform the students to come up with a better premise, or disprove why the theory is not true or why it is incorrect.Lead them to the apparent contradictions in their own thought so they come to it on their own through the power of revelation, or clarity which it may give rise to.

Stumage

A student not accepting a theory is fine, because well it’s just that, A theory. Now to be a good scientist, using the scientific method, for scientific purposes, through observation and analysis a good teacher should inform the students to come up with a better premise, or disprove why the theory is not true or why it is incorrect.Lead them to the apparent contradictions in their own thought so they come to it on their own through the power of revelation, or clarity which it may give rise to.

http://www.facebook.com/BrooklynDHM.OG Ricky Yapkowitz

Evolution is a Scientific Principle, not theory, meaning it has “withstood the test of time” while amassing an overwhelming, preponderance of supporting evidence; theories are still awaiting their time.

Stumage

I’m afraid your mistaken. Evolution is a theory, because it is a Hypothesis. Secondly it was formalized in “The theory of evolution” by Charles Darwin. The science of Evolution is based on the principles from this theory. A useful example would be a comparison of Newtonian physics and Quantum Physics. Newtonian physics predicts many things very well, but Quantum Physics predicts them better. Although (in my opinion) highly unlikely, the theory of evolution could be displaced by a new one, by making better predictions. Do not take my word for however, look it up on any university website that teaches it, or ask the scientists themselves what the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific principle is.

http://www.facebook.com/BrooklynDHM.OG Ricky Yapkowitz

No need to be “afraid,” but it not I who is mistaken. Evolution is NOT a hypothesis by any definition. As to the “semantics” of Principle vs Theory, that is a real issue, one in which I and many other people in Science have been engaged. Science educational pedagogy rigorously reinforces the idea that practitioners of science use “precise, unambiguous” terms when describing their work. However, this has clearly not been the case, rather our language has been essentially “gobblety-gook” and confusing with the misconception that if you don’t understand it, you’re just “not smart enough.” It is to this point, that I have dedicated almost a lifetime of endeavor in Science Education; to bring the beauty of Science to the People, all gobblety-gook aside.

The current philosophy of Science has at it’s core, the progression of thinking to help describe the Cosmos about us generally flowing along the following “stream:”

Observation of Phenomenon
|
[Hypotheses]
Hypothesizing (reasonable description/explanation of phenomenon), of
which there may be many to be quantitatively validated, out-rightly discounted, or revised for new “testing” of each particular hypothesis.
|
[Theory]
Eventually resulting in a massively, statistically validated more unified description which “seems” to best describe/explain the phenomenon. At this point, we state with strong certainty, a Theory.
|
[Principle]
While a Theory is accepted as “the most compelling” description of the phenomenon, “testing” of the Theory continues as it must “stand the test of time.” Time tends to bring other “parts” into the Theory and over time, all those parts are melded into a Scientific Principle, which we used to call “Laws.”

It is important to realize that the “flow along the stream” of this scientific thought process with associated quantitative refinement and validation, is actually meandering, with rivulets, rather than a “direct path;” it is a dynamic process. As such, Scientific Principles, such as Evolution, have “stood the test of time,”
being subjected to rigorous, on-going study and amassing a
“preponderance of evidence.”

—————————————————————————————————————–
Where do Newtonian Mechanics/Physics and Quantum Mechanics/Physics fit into this flow?

First, each has as it’s objective to describe/explain, the who, what, where, why, when, and how, of. . .

” . . .if the state of a dynamic system is known initially and
something is done to it, how will the state of the system
change with time in response?. . .”

Secondly, Newtonian Mechanics has continued to wonderfully describe systems on a “macro” scale, while Quantum Mechanics serves equally wonderfully to describe systems on a “sub-micro” scale (actually atomic and subatomic). Yes, it’s true that Newtonian Mechanics still had some “anomalies” which needed to dealt with. Quantum Mechanics has helped us to deal with those anomalies and work towards a more Unified Theory in Physics, blending the more classical parts with the more modern parts.

It is here, where the beauty lies, in the ebb and flow of the stream of scientific thought, ever onward towards a bit more unification of theory and resulting principles; wherever it may lead.

Adam

And the gray area between or joining of Quantum and Newtonian Mechanics
is where a potential Theory of Everything comes in, correct? That a
scientific theory that can reconcile both the macro (“traditional” physics involving roughly human-sized objects) and the micro (subatomic
particles and “quantum weirdness’) is sort of the Holy Grail of physics
at the moment.

My question is, where does Einstein’s Theory of
Relativity, Cosmology, and the physics of huge planet- and
star-sized objects come in? It was my understanding that a key dilemma in physics was how the physics of the really big stuff (stars, galaxies, etc.) jibes with that of the really small stuff (electrons, protons, quarks, and so on). Does Relativity and the like fit in with the regular “macro” or is it really in a category of its own.

Legitimate question, by the way; I’m not trying to provoke an argument here.

chubby

you know, I am surprised a paradigm shift has not yet occurred (maybe only in the tenure gripped minds of institution lackeys), the -ologies have no distinct advantage, one over another. they all occupy the same reality, they are not separated by different dimensions spying one another from computer screens (although we do) they are all working, this instant, if one is incomplete, then what does that say of the others? many are decried as archaic to not toe the various lines, but things are changing at such a rate that there seems to even be no line anymore….

Abdallaa09

You right Evolution is the theory, adaption is the principle.

Stumage

Thats not technically correct,it would be better to say: A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. A theory is basically an accepted hypothesis because it has the most accumulated evidence to support it.

Anonymous

The difference is that creationism has essentially no evidence to back it up, people just see complexity and assume some “divine” god made it. People scream “Impossible!” at the idea of evolution and feel it be unbelievable and so foolishly accept any propaganda offered up by merely human authorities, whom at the same time claim to “know” all that there is it know. It seems people are scared, that something they can’t comprehend happens right before their eyes.

Mysophobe

I stopped reading halfway through your “simile”. You seem to be getting your information about evolutionary theory from a 30 year old textbook. Normally I would engage anyone, especially someone with your screen name and convoluted understanding of logic, but you are literally too stupid to insult. Have at it. Here’s a parting brain teaser for you: How do bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

you’re right! we should let everyone know that theories are not necessarily true!

You for example cannot for one second convince me of the theory of gravity. I mean, come on! its a THEORY!

… but in all seriousness.. i could probably make a lightbulb for you without instructions if you really are looking for one..

(but in real seriousness, this really has little to do with how “smart” we are, and how bloated the infrastructure is. Advanced does not equal Intelligent. We ARE “advanced”, because we are stupid enough to allow our realities to be dependent on a system that no single person can really fully conceptualize.)

DeepCough

Believe this or not, Intelligent Design seems to be the theosophical bridge between science and religion, as Intelligent Design insists that there must have been a “Designer” of sorts to create all of these complex structures that work together for the sake of homeostatic function. But the problem with ID is that it stops at the Observation stage of the Scientific Method immediately jumps to the conclusion without establishing a proper way to get there, which makes the answer, “God did it.”

But I really don’t see any point to this flagrantly false dichotomy of “creationism vs. evolution,” because in no way was Darwin himself trying to discredit creationism, and he said so himself: “With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always
painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write
atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and
as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides
of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade
myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly
created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding
within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with
mice.”

The people who hate Darwin the most are the religious fundamentalists, who are cultural absolutists, that believe their view of the world is truly righteous and all others are false. These kind of people, coincidentally enough, cannot incorporate evolution into their worldview because they cannot evolve their perception of the world outside of their cherished doctrine, which is thoroughly rigid and totally solipsist.

DeepCough

Thing is, you don’t have to tow the party line in science if you have the SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND STRONG PROOF to contradict it.

Guesty

That’s a very apt summation under the circumstances you describe. And it is entirely true in situations where you have two -equal- “conceptual thought processes to chose from”.

Now, admittedly, I’m a biased person from a northern country, so this clearly factors into what I’ll say next, and so, I mean no disrespect towards you but I do take the liberty to affirm that it only holds if the two things are conceptually equal.
Really.
If both theories really were ‘liquids’, or, ‘suns’, or ‘flowcharts’ or any other basic object, then sure. But I’d say they’re not. They’re not simple objects that can be easily compared and assumed basically equal and turned into a choice between brand A and brand B of the same basic thing (cooked chicken vs fried chicken, still chicken), they’re overarching explanations based on introspectation and observation in relation to the universe –>based on wildly different approaches, basic assumptions and anxioms<– and so not just mere "thought processes" (as might be a cognitive endeavour or a heirarchial social system or a given attempt at economics). It's a… mildly false equivalency.

An explanainable system vastly mindbogglin and intriciately connected but observable and studiable and clearly 'present' and working on itself in what must be some mighty glorious feedback loops which we can observe, extrapolate and make assumptions off that generally hold true if tinkered with enough

is not inherently the same as

supernatural forces of any given kind, unobservable and unknowable and vast and never directly experienced yet casually directing growth through means unexplainable because it does.

See, being unable to explain parts of your theory in firm detail doesn't immediately render it void. And it doesn't mean that my inability to properly account for *every* chronological event for the last infinite span of time instantly puts my ideas on the same footing as yours.

Religion and science are both attempts at explaining where we come from and what the universe really is and what matter is and how X does Y to C when Z is out of town.

But I don't see anyone arguging with celestial mechanics and claiming that the movement of the solar systems planetary bodies is clearly not based on forces newtonian but obviously due to AMBULATORIANISM, God's Overarching Firmanent Design. (even if the particulars of black holes are still wobbly and some predictions are still strange and we haven't mapped THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE yet)

I don't see anyone looking at the test results of genetic sampling and arguing that clear, identifable and repeatable occurences that lead to blond hair or black eyes or darker skin cannot be explained by the dance of AC GT but must be becausse of TRAITISM, God's Overarching Bodytype Design (even if we havent't worked out every single genetic cross factor or mapped the genome of EVERY SINGLE SPECIES IN THE WORLD)

and so it just… boggles my mind that a remarkably elegant theory that seems to fit with the observations of the natural world, allows us to make certain predictions (no creature of THIS TYPE in THAT LAYER of the crust, genetic back tracking will reveal connections, people in areas of environment A will be different than people in area with environment B even if generally same species) is argued over so much and assumed basically equal because of missing links.

For instance, I fill a baloon with air. I then close my eyes and put my hands over my ears.I no longer know the exact state of the baloon. IS THE BALOON NOW A DRAGON?

… I don't know. There's a distinct missing link from my sensory input. And clearly such thriffles like continental drift, physics, mass, energy mechanics have nothing to do with it… because I'm a stupid human? To me that seems strange.

I mean, ultimately your statement isn't about evolution per se. It's about the complete and utter incapacity of basic human observation to explain the world because we're all so very stupid. It's… what? complete egalatarianism in relation to ideas? Phlogiston exists as well as fire and dormative faculties and fairies because damn, these fleshy sacks of meat just cannot comprehend anything! Solipsism rules, the outside universe is incomprehendabl vast and you will never, ever 'know' and theories based on observation is just as valid as random statements!

Okay, cool. I just think you're wrong, is all. Caps lock is because I can't quite get a handle on bolding or emphasising the text otherwise. I apologize if I come across as high nosed and superior, it's not quite my intention.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

Remember religion, science, and philosophy were all tied together back in the day.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

am i the only one that sees this as a fundamental problem with medicine today?

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

It comes from the wrong assumption that the earth is a closed system. IE it would break thermodynamics along the lines of using more energy than was put in it or something (you know, neglecting the constant huge bombardment of energy from the sun)

Non op

Our lives are made up of fiction. What matters most is the fiction you choose to believe in. -V.W.

ARGUE WITH ME

Lol, the pursuit of knowledge actually has a point, and can bear many fruits.. all kinds.
Its stupid that we confuse our current knowledge with complete knowledge. Make money, help people, destroy people, spectate and understand our environment are all things we can do with knowledge.

To say that humans can correctly answer, and answer with complete credibility, the question of our origin is a little absurd. No human that has ever kept a written record has ever witnessed the changes that you are predicting to have happened. So no records. No witnesses. No proof. Just something that makes logical sense at appearance.. With what you have here, this would not even make it to court if it was some sort of trial.
— Same thing as religion if you ask me. No records (except the bible, controversial to people so we’ll just say no records), no proof, no witnesses. You just happen to believe in science. Not religion, thats your choice. Both are equal in unknowning (again). You have your belief, and its a belief because there is no concrete evidence suggesting that humans evolved. If evidence is found, its implications are controversial, which is the same with religion. And religion already claims that it is just a belief.
**Lets be clear, I’m not demeaning definite science, reality is always going to work as reality is expected to work. Thats science. That’s knowledge. We get that knowledge by examining reality.
Your argument is much different, your argument is saying that “ya we know this much information so we can assume that the humans/world were created this way”. I’m saying your assumption is equal in weight to relgious assumptions. There is no evidence, no witnesses, but your predicting the event of something that we have never experienced. Then you are believing that your intelligence lead you to the understanding of where we came from, but yet your evidence isnt qualified to make such an assumption. Which, if you read the sentence right before this sentence, you can see that it can be flipped onto a christian and they would still have the same lack of quality evidence as well.

Christians just know they are dumb humans, they admit that. People like you are worse because you cover up your dumbness with academia, and then make an assumption that can’t be warranted with the evidence available. Tricking millions of people with a personal assumptive decision. And they would believe too because of the academia you hide behind, academia that doesn’t warrant such an assumption, BUT the people don’t know that. Why don’t you just say the facts? We have no proof of evolution. We know species environmental adaptation is real. We know that our dna is similar to monkeys, but not identical. Anything else you can think of that you ACTUALLY have proof for. PROOF.

How would you know if this reality, the one that seems to work all perfect together, the one your getting all your knowledge from, the same one your getting assumptions from, wasn’t created by a God? What if it was just a perfect schematic planning of reality. And by scratching the surface learning of the perfect planning, your knowledge of reality would be bits and pieces, causing you to draw wrong assumptions. I feel like this is equally as plausible, and should have just as fair as a chance for belief as your assumptions are.

Non op

Our lives are made up of fiction. What matters most is the fiction you choose to believe in. -V.W.

Anarchy Pony

You mean the sacred rays of Sol? Who blesses us with the energy we need to animate our our material forms.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

heh well with the “christians as son worshipers” theory, that explains creationism pretty cleanly

Patrick

Here is another way in which you are wrong; Humans have amazing brain capacities so far untapped.
I believe we all have the capability to have vast amounts of both wisdom AND intelligence. BUT the only way to accomplish such a thing at a societal level is to have better education. Imagine if everybody on this planet was taught from childhood all the right things we need to know in order to make the best possible decisions more frequently throughout our lives. I know you are bringing examples of past history to support you arguement, but please try to remember that we have not yet seen an era of ‘renaissance’ education directed properly at our children. When society reaches an educated level where most everybody knows the merit in agreeing to disagree, and the choosing properly both inwardly and outwardly, that is when we will THRIVE.

Lastly, yes we humans may be stupid, but we are born that way. Doesn’t mean we have to live that way.

Perhaps Christianity was on to something when they teach about ‘original sin’. Being borne guilty because the rest of the world is guilty. Replace the word “guilty” with the word “stupid”. Of course, whoever made that up couldn’t go around telling stupid people how stupid they are LOL.

ARGUE WITH ME

Your little brain teaser is not evolution in the sense of what your talking about. “here you go with your false equivalencies” lol I’m dumb as shit I guess. I see what’s in front of me as for what it is, I don’t automatically assume more than what is warranted. Little brain teaser for you: Have you seen bacteria that’s evolving into something entirely different? Or have you seen bacteria grow thumbs as part of some point progressive mutation?

Mr Willow

Not at all.

It only seems that way because most people are too tranquilized by anti-depressants to notice medicine (among a vast array of other things) has a problem to begin with.

ARGUE WITH ME

I appreciate the response. We are not dumb as humans in academia such as “thriffles like continental drift, physics, mass, energy mechanics.” But we are real dumb as humans to think we can get a correct answer for creation from our knowledge. We are over assuming the implicitive power of current knowledge. Knowledge is ever expanding, and can easily undermine credible knowledge (as well as support it, it goes both ways). We are not as far progressed as we think in finding THE ANSWER. Therefore its clear that it is a theory. And evolution is true in aspects of species development, but its all assumptions and speculation when saying WE as intelligent humans came from something entirely different.

ARGUE WITH ME

lol well call me when that happens

ARGUE WITH ME

lol well call me when that happens

ARGUE WITH ME

Note – I dont care if you agree with me, I feel my logic is still intact, no one has convinced me yet otherwise, everyone is still saying were smart, so smart that we can predict for 100% certainty where we came from. I’m saying were not that smart, and no current evidence supports one species transforming into a completely different kind of genome. So belief in it, takes that, belief. Just like religion. lol how does no one see that. At the basis of everything there is drop from evidence that supports itself when it gets to assumptive theories.

ARGUE WITH ME

Im not saying that, for example, that the theory of gravity cannot be true because I can’t see it, so in fact it must be God keeping us from floating away. Im not saying that. What up goes down, theres proof right? Evolutionism of humans from something entirely different has no proof.

Patrick

For all of those confused about Christianity and other Religions here are your answers…

Holy, Divine = intelligence therefor intelligence is empathy and empathy is love (sounds pretty holy to me, and in all honesty, what other desirable attributes could these words actually mean? : /

“God” and his “Angels” are Holy and live in “Heaven” because they educated themselves enough so as not to kill each other and reach a level where they could explore the universe (Heaven)

Born sinful or evil means to be born without knowledge/wisdom. This is natural. If we grow up having no knowledge or wisdom taught to make us smart(holy) we will act stupid(evil)
So therefor we humans are indeed evil and sinful. But replace those words with “Stupid” and “Careless” and it begins to make sense.
I say we don’t need to be baptized to cleanse ourselves of sin, we need to get good grades and read Literature.

We are not in Heaven(outer space) because we have not washed away our sin (our stupid). Only by trying to be Jesus or the buddha or the prophet can we achieve technological and emotional solidarity to ensure our survival and space exploration status, ie, go to heaven. (I think we can all agree that jesus, the buddha, the prophet and any other messiahs I am not listing have been more intelligent than most people)

Anyone who wants to know who the devil actually is, it is us, it is the
decisions we make that bring suffering to humanity. Suffering is not a
good thing. People are suffering more than ever these days. Wars are fought and humans are reckless because we haven’t quite fully taught ourselves not to be.
Carelessness and stupidity (Sin and evil) lead to suffering. As an example please look at the Banksters and corporate elites. WE didn’t EDUCATE our stupidity(evil) away, so therefor those things have continued it’s hold on society. We will be liberated from “Satan” when everyone on this planet can spot stupidity and carelessness and educate themselves away from it, or choose not to support it (both very similar approaches)

I’ll also tell you that if any of our messiahs actually came to earth, I am quite sure their goal for humanity would involve better math grades and some ethics classes.

I respect both religion and science, I believe religion hold a lot of truth for us. We just need to look at scriptures and not be afraid to really understand what it means. Shy away from the fantastic aspect of it and realize that Its all metaphor, because only metaphor and story can grab the attention of many while not insulting them in their (naturally) confused state of mind.

Patrick

For all of those confused about Christianity and other Religions here are your answers…

Holy, Divine = intelligence therefor intelligence is empathy and empathy is love (sounds pretty holy to me, and in all honesty, what other desirable attributes could these words actually mean? : /

“God” and his “Angels” are Holy and live in “Heaven” because they educated themselves enough so as not to kill each other and reach a level where they could explore the universe (Heaven)

Born sinful or evil means to be born without knowledge/wisdom. This is natural. If we grow up having no knowledge or wisdom taught to make us smart(holy) we will act stupid(evil)
So therefor we humans are indeed evil and sinful. But replace those words with “Stupid” and “Careless” and it begins to make sense.
I say we don’t need to be baptized to cleanse ourselves of sin, we need to get good grades and read Literature.

We are not in Heaven(outer space) because we have not washed away our sin (our stupid). Only by trying to be Jesus or the buddha or the prophet can we achieve technological and emotional solidarity to ensure our survival and space exploration status, ie, go to heaven. (I think we can all agree that jesus, the buddha, the prophet and any other messiahs I am not listing have been more intelligent than most people)

Anyone who wants to know who the devil actually is, it is us, it is the
decisions we make that bring suffering to humanity. Suffering is not a
good thing. People are suffering more than ever these days. Wars are fought and humans are reckless because we haven’t quite fully taught ourselves not to be.
Carelessness and stupidity (Sin and evil) lead to suffering. As an example please look at the Banksters and corporate elites. WE didn’t EDUCATE our stupidity(evil) away, so therefor those things have continued it’s hold on society. We will be liberated from “Satan” when everyone on this planet can spot stupidity and carelessness and educate themselves away from it, or choose not to support it (both very similar approaches)

I’ll also tell you that if any of our messiahs actually came to earth, I am quite sure their goal for humanity would involve better math grades and some ethics classes.

I respect both religion and science, I believe religion hold a lot of truth for us. We just need to look at scriptures and not be afraid to really understand what it means. Shy away from the fantastic aspect of it and realize that Its all metaphor, because only metaphor and story can grab the attention of many while not insulting them in their (naturally) confused state of mind.

Ceausescu

The assumption that Jesus, Buddha, and Za Prophet were smarter than most people is outrageous.

chubby

it has nothing to do with smart, but having the concentration to will yourself into what you want, not wishing, not hoping, but actually becoming, embodying it. which is a genius that is not attainable by reading books or debating endlessly on obscure sites….

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

I wouldnt say so. Do you know what you have to do to be widely known for your deeds without murder and pillage in the old ages lacking vanity, and mass communication? You have to be intelligent in one manner or another to pull something like that off (either that or a smart power elite made up the stories; whatever, its still requires foresight)

Yer_Dad

Darwin’s theory has been shown to be as full of
holes as creationism. It began with the book
“Quantum Evolution”

Darwin’s Fan boys are just as blind as some (but not all)
Christians.

Yer_Dad

Darwin’s theory has been shown to be as full of
holes as creationism. It began with the book
“Quantum Evolution”

Darwin’s Fan boys are just as blind as some (but not all)
Christians.

Patrick

Ask yourself today how you can help make it happen for future generations. Avoid if you can the natural emotion of wanting to see all your hopes and dreams accomplished in this one lifetime. Its so unrealistic. What is real and productive is setting the foundation for generations to come.

The thing is, the human flaw of personal satisfaction will always get in the way. It would be a good idea if we weren’t all flawed. Everyone wants personal satisfaction in their current life. So sacrificing personal satisfaction would not sit well with the other millions of americans. If we got an endless supply of energy (money/resources/tech) it could happen.

ARGUE WITH ME

“But the problem with ID is that it stops at the Observation stage of
the Scientific Method immediately jumps to the conclusion without
establishing a proper way to get there, which makes the answer, “God did
it.” ”

Wouldn’t the action of ending at the conclusion “God did it” be called a belief? And that’s the whole concept of the religion.
But wouldn’t seeing slight genotypic and phenotypic variations, and then jumping to the conclusion that we came from something entirely different be just exactly what you are saying? Immediately concluding? It would be much more than just a slight variation. Something we have never seen happen naturally. So in fact, it would be a belief in science, which is just as unfounded as saying “God did it” would be. so it all ends up being just a choice of beliefs

Anonymous

Calypso_1

*yawn*

Patrick

Yep and when we are satisfied with resources, That’s when we will be able to start learning some lessons about…ourselves.

ARGUE WITH ME

fallacy: darwin in this discussion is used for a belief that was derived off his work, which is the idea that we all came from something that is not human. Darwin was a very very smart man and had great contributions. It was the people who reviewed his work, who then assumed the genetic variations that are presently seen, could have, at one time, been used to transform DNA into whole different species or genome.

Dimitri

Just because you believe in god does not mean you believe in the christian god. Look up the word “Agnostic”. This is THE problem with “God”. People assume if you believe in a higher power it must be the god of the bible. Gimme a break and open your mind up a little more to the possibilities outside the box.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

This gets into the idea that theres faith in each really. But it all gets down into who thinks their superior in their faith: Creationists having faith in the bible(ideas at least ~2000ish years old and into the past) because its older and must have more ancient knowledge and truth, and evolutionists having faith in scientific study because its new(~150ish years in this case and on to the future) because its new and everything new must either better, or at least you can have faith that we’ll have the answer eventually.

The two will never agree because their basis for valuable knowledge is unidirectional and opposite rather than bidirectional. (IE the truth is truth no matter what direction you’re viewing it from)

((sorry for not being totally argumentative, i figure you got enough of that though))

Real

the universe began when i was born and will end with me, case closed. now enjoy yourselves you mere figments of my imagination

Real

the universe began when i was born and will end with me, case closed. now enjoy yourselves you mere figments of my imagination

UrbanMonk

People die every day, we are still here. We are figments of your imagination only because you haven’t figured out who we are. Without Truth, what else can you do but project? Sorry, your not special, Reality gave all to all.

Mysophobe

You’re in good company. This was essentially Ayn Rand’s view of death. Explains a lot. There’s audio of it floating around the Internet somewheres…

Alejandro Witte007

If evolution is understood as survival of the fittest, then creationism must be true, becouse it has been arround for thousands of years (and has adapted in many ways to very different landscapes: like the nazi or ufologist), and – if we give credit to statistics – is the predominant species. What I think is that both so called “theories” are in fact extradimensional-interbrain-parasites in simbiotic relation: they feed on the electrochemistry underlying the passions unleashed by the interactions between carriers of opposed “beliefs”.

Alejandro Witte007

If evolution is understood as survival of the fittest, then creationism must be true, becouse it has been arround for thousands of years (and has adapted in many ways to very different landscapes: like the nazi or ufologist), and – if we give credit to statistics – is the predominant species. What I think is that both so called “theories” are in fact extradimensional-interbrain-parasites in simbiotic relation: they feed on the electrochemistry underlying the passions unleashed by the interactions between carriers of opposed “beliefs”.

DeepCough

Makes a lot more sense than what “ARGUE WITH ME” is saying.

DeepCough

Incorrect. Patently incorrect. Beliefs require only faith. Science requires hypothesis, observation, experimentation, and conclusion in order to arrive at an answer to a question.
Furthermore, (“But wouldn’t seeing slight genotypic and phenotypic variations, and then
jumping to the conclusion that we came from something entirely
different be just exactly what you are saying? Immediately concluding?”) you really, really, really need to look at the fucking fossil record again.

DeepCough

Why do you creationists keep leaving out the fact that “natural selection” is anything but random, as the SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT determines what survives and what doesn’t?

DeepCough

Makes a lot more sense than what “ARGUE WITH ME” is saying.

Alejandro Witte007

Temples and schools are both breeding nests of the extradimensional-interbrain-parasites of opposed polarity, and this post is the kind of place where they feed on the underlying electrochemistry of the passions unleashed by the crossing of their carriers.

Alejandro Witte007

Temples and schools are both breeding nests of the extradimensional-interbrain-parasites of opposed polarity, and this post is the kind of place where they feed on the underlying electrochemistry of the passions unleashed by the crossing of their carriers.

Thereisnobox

Someones been out of the box…..

ARGUE WITH ME

Thats what I’m trying to say. Both evolutionism and creationism require faith. Both are missing something; and that the something requires faith to over look. Neither is indefinitely true with 0% chance of being wrong. I would assume that would be the choice of life if you were a god creating the world.
You said get the answer “eventually”, hopefully it comes to fruition.

Creation myths are not meant to be taken literaly so evolution shouldn’t threaten anyone’s religion.
Religion differs from place to place but science is the same anywhere and this unifying quality is what makes the scientific method the perfect tool for finding the origin of ALL of us.

Laffy@gmail.com

Creation myths are not meant to be taken literaly so evolution shouldn’t threaten anyone’s religion.
Religion differs from place to place but science is the same anywhere and this unifying quality is what makes the scientific method the perfect tool for finding the origin of ALL of us.

Laffy@gmail.com

Creation myths are not meant to be taken literaly so evolution shouldn’t threaten anyone’s religion.
Religion differs from place to place but science is the same anywhere and this unifying quality is what makes the scientific method the perfect tool for finding the origin of ALL of us.

Alejandro Witte007

The substance that the extradimensional-interbrain-parasites release in the human organism is called “argument”: it provides an adicting feeling of certitude and triggers the passional reactions that sustain the parasite, forming a vicious cycle.

Alejandro Witte007

The substance that the extradimensional-interbrain-parasites release in the human organism is called “argument”: it provides an adicting feeling of certitude and triggers the passional reactions that sustain the parasite, forming a vicious cycle.

ARGUE WITH ME

ok…so still… your not helping your self. Have you seen humans come from something that is not human? Why do you keep leaving that out?Has any species present in another genome ever sprout randomly from a completely different genome with the advantages of the new genome? You ever see an armor plated duck ever come out a rhinos vagina? Wouldn’t that provide an advantage for living for the duck? Show me something that shows the evolution of something that is sub-human into something that is human. Natural selection has to do with the species that are present in the environment, and assists select species in survival due to the environmental conditions leading to reproduction of animals that have the traits of another animal that is CLOSELY related giving them an advantage for survival. So how do you get humans? Natural selection does not induce radical transformations of something into something completely different. Natural selection doesn’t account for our cognitive advantage over every other animals who we would be related too.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

Makes me think the whole damn left/right paradigm is really just a big argument between those with faith in the past vs those with faith in the future (cant we all just get along?)

ARGUE WITH ME

I wouldn’t classify it as faith in the past if concepts induced from it are applicable now and in the future

Ceausescu

The assumption that Jesus, Buddha, and Za Prophet were smarter than most people is outrageous.

ARGUE WITH ME

Scared? Its called disagreeing with what is presented as facts, when in reality it is theory, and even more an assumptive theory when saying where we would have came from. Disagreeing, not scared

Alejandro Witte007

It is not that they were smarter, it is that they weren’t as lazy as most people.

Alejandro Witte007

It is not that they were smarter, it is that they weren’t as lazy as most people.

DeepCough

What missing link? Are you still looking for the “God Gene,” too? Is it so difficult to understand that simple things can become bigger and more complex over time? Do you even take into account that the Earth is over 4 BILLION years old?! Do you still think that the reason for the philtrum is because an angel hushes an infant with its index finger while it’s still in the womb? Obviously, linearity ain’t your thing, because then you’d understand how the fossil record shows how all organisms, at some point, were connected, much in the way that all the branches of the Tree of Life are connected.

P.S. I hope this image of the HAND FISH (that’s right, that’s its common name) makes you shit a brick.

But they blaspheme the sacred union of Sol and Terra, and pray to their false desert god that masquerades as a sky god and the do nothing messiah that they will wait forever in vein for and acts as an enabler to the patriarchal abuse of the “father”. And they proclaim heresy of domination over the Earth, the skin of our Great Mother, and arrogance of human superiority to the rest of our living family. They consign our brothers and sisters to extinction with their vicious heresy, they are not to be trusted or accepted so long as they proclaim such arrogant and savage notions.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

Thats why they call it the False left/right paradigm

trish

“because then you’d understand how the fossil record shows how all organisms, at some point, were connected”?

hey, kinda OT, but can you explain this a little? I’m writing a little short story about something along the same lines

Anarchy Pony

Prove to me the universe didn’t begin eleven seconds ago and all of our memories and perceptions are entirely fabricated. Prove to me that any of you are actually independent thinking beings and not the machinations of some omnipotent puppetmaster that created this universe solely for me.

Anarchy Pony

Prove to me the universe didn’t begin eleven seconds ago and all of our memories and perceptions are entirely fabricated. Prove to me that any of you are actually independent thinking beings and not the machinations of some omnipotent puppetmaster that created this universe solely for me.

Redacted

So I say, so I am.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

at the time of this writing it says your comment was posted 19 hours ago?

DeepCough

Care to explain this duck-beaver thing that lives in Australia called the “Platypus,” motherfucker?

P.S. Ever read about the effects of omega fatty acids and entheogens on the “human” brain?

P.P.S. The word “human” is not a scientific term: the word is derived from the word “humus” which means “ground, earth” as in “humans are earthly beings.” And it would really interest you to know that the word “soul,” in the original Gothic, meant “belonging to the sea” since the Goths believed that’s where life started. So even the Goths could accept evolution in their own way, now why the fuck can’t you?

ARGUE WITH ME

LOL what? So lets say your right that the earth is billions of years old, soo out of the millions of species on earth, and all the years that we have kept written records as a human race, that we haven’t witnessed one species evolve into something else entirely different? I feel like those odds are worse than the lotto. Your picture is funny, what are you trying to prove? Either that is just an ugly fish, or, lets have it your way, and say this was evolution. So thats evolution huh? A fish that may have evolved from a different fish, which is actually a form of natural selection? So it looks like it gots legs. What happens when it goes out of water with its new legs, its gonna die as shit BECAUSE…its a fish. Where was i supposed to shit the brick at? Lol just because we just discovered it doesn’t mean it wasn’t like this the whole time. Its a different form of anglar fish.
All you gotta do is show me where I can find a picture/account of the actual thing we evolved from and we’ll be set. Almost there! Dont stop now!

DeepCough

Dude, it’s called a “metaphor.”

DeepCough

Well, I hypothesize that you descended from a race of beings called “troglodytes,” a species of Hominid that couldn’t quite figure out evolution, so it never learned to really “think.” And based upon my observations of your statements, you just can’t get past the Observation stage of the Scientific method (Michael Behe has the same problem), and in my attempts to explain simply how evolution works, you continue to rebuke with the same arguments, so I must conclude that you are clearly one of the descendants of these retarded “troglodytes,” which owes its survival purely to religious establishments to purport dogma and rituals for the sake of conversion.

See, that’s how you use the Scientific method.

ARGUE WITH ME

If you’d give me a reason that is sound in its argument than I would have no problem thinking it over on what I should do with it. But you haven’t given me anything except some pictures of animals.
So there is no way that the platypus could just be its own animals? I can explain it. Its called a platypus. Its an animal. Its own type of animal. Not a beaver. Not a duck. But a platypus. Put a million beavers, and a million ducks in a room, give them some sort of aphrodisiac, or just transfer genes manually, and see if you end up with any platypus’s as a result.

P.S.S. If I was goth I still wouldn’t believe it…BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO PROOF. lol. what don’t you get? Your blindly following what people, but go ahead, mate a duck and a beaver. See what happens.
O if the platypus was the latest form of evolution, then I can’t wait for the rhino duck combo

Isn’t it called cause and effect? I have a question, and if you answer it then the effect would be completion. You, sir, have yet to answer it. So besides natural selection between close species, where the hell do we come from? What did we evolve from? Where is it? Where is one species out of the millions of species, that is currently in the process of evolving into a different organism with distinct physiological changes? Lol you are the one that brought up the scientific process, but now all of a sudden it’s ok we can skip a step?

“simply” explain how evolution works? Hahah How? By sending me a picture of a platypus and a fish? that as far as I know, are still doing what platypuses do and still doing what fish do? Well your input is pretty useless. Have a good one

Anonymous

people HAVE been observing bacterias evolving traits that they did not have before. is a penicillin-resistant bacterium still the same bacterium or “something entirely different”? Your “argument” is a linguistic one, not a biological.

given the timespans involved in acquiring new in-species traits, your stupid (there, i said it…) question for anecdotal evidence “have you seen…?” is pure trolling. as is asking if a single-cell organism would actually grow an opposable multi-cell bodily appendix for use with 4 other fingers which it does not have.

Suddenly Spam!

Evolution is not proven. It at least has evidence, though.

Suddenly Spam!

Evolution is not proven. It at least has evidence, though.

ARGUE WITH ME

How is that stupid, or how am I stupid? (Your so brave by the way) lol. An antibiotic resistant bacteria, still at the end of the day, is bacteria. Its not evolving into a fungus, its not evolving into yeast. Your little response here is exemplifying natural selection. Traits/genes become activated/deactivated depending on the environment, and bacteria could even pick up free dna and try to to incorporate in their own plasmid, giving them antibiotic resistance, or whatever it encodes for. But this still does not change the fact that It is, and will remain, bacteria. Pure trolling then huh? So since I’m stupid, and your smart, would you tell me from which us humans evolved from? What was the organism? And again, then why out of the millions of species on earth, is none currently going through a physiological evolution that you guys describe as evolutionism. From something sub-human into us? So we’ve never seen it, apparentlly the process takes so long that we can’t see it for ourselves since, there is no proof of human evolution from anything else but a human, and yet I’m still told to believe this. To think bacteria becoming drug resistant is the same concept as a fish growing legs, is completely wrong and stupid.

ARGUE WITH ME

Natural selection and adaption are proven, not the generation of a complete new organism outside of what it previously was.

yeah, injecting just the right amount of poison that kills the infection but not you, seems……

chubby

it has nothing to do with smart, but having the concentration to will yourself into what you want, not wishing, not hoping, but actually becoming, embodying it. which is a genius that is not attainable by reading books or debating endlessly on obscure sites….

Kurt the Turk

It is completely compatible with theistic beliefs. OK, we are all inbred from Adam and Eve might not be compatible, but come on, just start the course by saying, “to Theists I’m showing you a tool in God’s tool-shed.” ovah ‘n’ out

http://www.facebook.com/people/Kurt-Webb/53801531 Kurt Webb

It is completely compatible with theistic beliefs. OK, we are all inbred from Adam and Eve might not be compatible, but come on, just start the course by saying, “to Theists I’m showing you a tool in God’s tool-shed.” ovah ‘n’ out

D51

It is true that we will never truly know how the universe came to being. We can all speculate, but it is like running on a treadmill: lots of sweating, but going nowhere, fast. The difference between creationists and scientists is a simple one, but it is huge. Scientists have always, and continue to, propose theories, and then attempt to prove if the theory is true or false. The community embraces the failure of a theory because, that in itself, is a positive – something was learned. New theories are posed, tested, more things are learned. And on it goes. This is the laypersons explanation of course.

Creationists rely on a book of dubious, violent and prejudiced origins as some sort of divine guidance. They have no clue who wrote the book, why the book was written in a language that almost no one understood (and then translated in a convenience to suit the the politics of those in power during the era), why cetain parts of the book were suspiciously destroyed by the political leaders of the time, etc. And yet, they hold this book (full of goodness, full of evil) to be the final answer to everything. No debate, no discussion, no nothing. These creationists are stuck in the past and refuse to engage in any discussion that may “test” the logic of their book. Relying on this book is simply a way of passing the buck, and not accepting responsibility for anything that happens. It is lazy, regressive and of course, dangerous, as the mobs cry out the name of some mythical god, and then destroy, without any reasoning or thought, anything or anyone in their way. The sad thing is that this thinking will eventually return us to the bronze age, where we will be running around in rags, unwashed, uncivilized and hopeless.

D51

It is true that we will never truly know how the universe came to being. We can all speculate, but it is like running on a treadmill: lots of sweating, but going nowhere, fast. The difference between creationists and scientists is a simple one, but it is huge. Scientists have always, and continue to, propose theories, and then attempt to prove if the theory is true or false. The community embraces the failure of a theory because, that in itself, is a positive – something was learned. New theories are posed, tested, more things are learned. And on it goes. This is the laypersons explanation of course.

Creationists rely on a book of dubious, violent and prejudiced origins as some sort of divine guidance. They have no clue who wrote the book, why the book was written in a language that almost no one understood (and then translated in a convenience to suit the the politics of those in power during the era), why cetain parts of the book were suspiciously destroyed by the political leaders of the time, etc. And yet, they hold this book (full of goodness, full of evil) to be the final answer to everything. No debate, no discussion, no nothing. These creationists are stuck in the past and refuse to engage in any discussion that may “test” the logic of their book. Relying on this book is simply a way of passing the buck, and not accepting responsibility for anything that happens. It is lazy, regressive and of course, dangerous, as the mobs cry out the name of some mythical god, and then destroy, without any reasoning or thought, anything or anyone in their way. The sad thing is that this thinking will eventually return us to the bronze age, where we will be running around in rags, unwashed, uncivilized and hopeless.

Claiming that a layperson’s inability to accurately describe a complex scientific theory somehow proves your case is the height of intellectual laziness on your part. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The information you seek is out there, if you really want to challenge your entrenched beliefs. This site seems to pull it together nicely, although it’s been hacked by fundies. It even has creationist rebuttals.

I gather that your alternative theory is that humans and every other species on earth appeared, as is, and out of the fucking blue? I’d like to see some evidence of that.

DeepCough

You’re right, that was spite. Way to take the piss out of it.

DeepCough

You can’t have hard evidence or proof for faith-based explanations.

Anonymous

And behold He hath reached out His Noodly Appendage into the minds of Believers, teaching them the Ways of His earthly Avatars. And through their Love for Brother Monkey and Sister Cat they hath made GlowKitty. And He was pleased.

Andrew

“Species” are just names humans come up with to define animals we see. All animals are transitional, and “microevolution” is to “macroevolution” what inches are to miles. One necessarily implies and leads to the other.

Okay, I’m done dancing around the issue, now it’s time to deliver the fatal blow. We modern humans can trace our lineage back to Australopithecus africanus, the most direct ancestor we have that goes all the way back to the Pliocene era (2-3 million years), and from that species of Hominid (Great Ape), we humans gradually evolved to Homo sapiens sapiens, and scientist KNOW this, because of TRANSITION FOSSILS–specifically, the bones–that demonstrate the development of us Hominids over the aeons. If ever there was a reason why biologists think we humans are similar to Apes, it’s because of these things called ANALOGOUS STRUCTURES. Using their common sense, scientists just plain notice that, “Hey, maybe we humans hail from this Family of Animalia.” And you know who would agree with this: an Austrian friar (Christian monk) by the name of GREGOR MENDEL, who is known as the father of GENETICS. Now ain’t that just fucking wild, a staunchly religious man being such an avid scientist? But the truth is, he had to work at it, it didn’t just come to him by way of divine revelation, and that is apparently your biggest problem: you can’t figure this shit out yourself. You keep on reaching this stop-gap in your brain that prevents you from processing this information. You basically PROVED my point from the beginning that, “The people who hate Darwin the most are the religious fundamentalists,
who are cultural absolutists, that believe their view of the world is
truly righteous and all others are false.”

Anarchy Pony

I try.

Andrew

They are exactly the same thing. The only differences are semantic.

Chow5810

I mostly agree with you. however, I do think you are making a large assumption that most atheist’s believe in/or are looking for a missing link. as a poster above said, there (could be) a missing link for a reason.

chubby

hehe love this site, the more everyone keeps going with their absolute assertions, the more questions arise, for myself anyways. I see the logic of both sides, although one will immediately denounce the other as illogical (although everything being constructed of ghostly particles that seemingly have no substance seems irrational in the extreme), I see where both are coming from, but a static view from both ends (except a very few) is perhaps damaging any sort of common ground that could be attained, “all or nothing” like spoiled children. one thing Ive learned about entrenched views (irrational or rational) is that they can be justified with just about any sort of argumentative wordplay and development of already biased theories that supposedly fill in the holes (see the current state of the world and the justifications for its exploitation). funny thing being stubborn, but it can actually be changed to being stubborn in holding the position of being open to any and everything. the problem with only choosing rationality is believing it is the paragon of sobriety and intelligence, whereas to walk in the world of irrationality involves immersion in the abstract that can only be experienced, in the times we live in, we can rationally say there is more than meets the eye, beyond even the most minuscule, observable particles but we remain static. but something tells me institutional hierarchy is about to receive revelations from the socalled top of the pyramid that ties it together how they wish it to be tied together. strange days ahead, just remember the socalled irrational has centuries of literature behind, and beware anyone who might reword it for their own purposes…

chubby

hehe love this site, the more everyone keeps going with their absolute assertions, the more questions arise, for myself anyways. I see the logic of both sides, although one will immediately denounce the other as illogical (although everything being constructed of ghostly particles that seemingly have no substance seems irrational in the extreme), I see where both are coming from, but a static view from both ends (except a very few) is perhaps damaging any sort of common ground that could be attained, “all or nothing” like spoiled children. one thing Ive learned about entrenched views (irrational or rational) is that they can be justified with just about any sort of argumentative wordplay and development of already biased theories that supposedly fill in the holes (see the current state of the world and the justifications for its exploitation). funny thing being stubborn, but it can actually be changed to being stubborn in holding the position of being open to any and everything. the problem with only choosing rationality is believing it is the paragon of sobriety and intelligence, whereas to walk in the world of irrationality involves immersion in the abstract that can only be experienced, in the times we live in, we can rationally say there is more than meets the eye, beyond even the most minuscule, observable particles but we remain static. but something tells me institutional hierarchy is about to receive revelations from the socalled top of the pyramid that ties it together how they wish it to be tied together. strange days ahead, just remember the socalled irrational has centuries of literature behind, and beware anyone who might reword it for their own purposes…

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

This pretty succinctly explains the frustration with the demand of the missing link in a humerous manner (given its supposed to be the future)

Essentially the assumption (that which you say we cannot make) is that if we can get a different species in a few decades like my lizard example, then in one set of decades a species can change ever so slightly, then do it again every couple of decades until its been such a long period of time that you cannot in good faith call the old thing and the new thing the same species (or order or phylum). In all honesty though, it seems silly to try to name a species for every slight difference between every iteration of change.

The standard counter argument to this of course is the confusion over the age of the earth.

I sidestep this issue with the belief that evolutionary “speed”(for lack of a better word) is variable, in a manner that the age of the earth is effectively unimportant. It makes sense to me that catostrophic and environmental chaos increases the “speed” of evolution.

This is also a perfect counter to the question “why don’t we see much/any evolution around in the time since evolution was conceptualized?” This is because we are living in an evolutionary stagnant age, especially humans. War was the biggest form of chaos and catastrophe for the human species, and that has been removed from the lives of people in the US especially. We’ve also lived in relatively mild climate, not too many global events effecting our climate (well theres the climate debate but thats a different animal).

I have no “proof” that you’re looking for, only reasoned arguments.(well in the video, the first couple of missing links in the infinite chain are real)

The reason people get so defensive about evolution is that its the only way we can have faith that the future of life goes on in the scientific worldview. Without beneficial change, there is only decline, and people have been fed the “nothing but decline” mythos from christianity for a long time, and its making people sick.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

I wouldnt say so. Do you know what you have to do to be widely known for your deeds without murder and pillage in the old ages lacking vanity, and mass communication? You have to be intelligent in one manner or another to pull something like that off (either that or a smart power elite made up the stories; whatever, its still requires foresight)

Tuna Ghost

There are several species that have been found between homo sapiens and their primate ancestors, by the way. The “missing link” is not missing, and it certainly isn’t fake.

Tuna Ghost

You are aware that speciation, a species transitioning into another, has been observed, right? As in people have literally watched it happen?

And we have seen a species evolve into humanity. We’ve seen it in the fossil record.

Tuna Ghost

Show me something that shows the evolution of something that is sub-human into something that is human.

You mean like the Fossil Record? The one that shows Australopithicus anamensis leading to Homo sapiens?

chubby

look up syntropy

ARGUE WITH ME

would you please direct me to something that discusses this discovery?

Anarchy Pony

No actually, there are mountains of proof. There are many discovered remains of pre-human apelike creatures, that are clrealy the evolutionary predecessors of modern humans.

ARGUE WITH ME

I’m not to sure I understand, if athiests don’t believe in God, then they are trying to explain the origin of humans as a sequential process in terms of current human knowledge, void of any god or master plan, but instead relying on mutational chance that has not ever been observed; sometimes confusing natural selection/genetic variation with complete physiological evolutionary change associated genome mutating into a completely different functional genome.
If atheists are not looking for the “missing link”, which would be considered what we “evolved” from to become the homo- genus, then what are they doing? They would just be living accepting that it’s a mystery.

You said: “or at least you can have faith that we’ll have the answer eventually.”
— What happens if that does happen, we figure out everything there is needed to know. Wouldn’t the next question be, well where did it come from? Like the higgs-boson particle, if it exists and they find a “God” molecule that is the very base of all matter… It still doesn’t explain how the very first most basic particle was formed, how does it appear from nothing? We would know the function of the particle, we would probably figure out how to harness it for ourselves, but would we ever be able discover what created the molecule that is basis of all other molecules.

You said: “or at least you can have faith that we’ll have the answer eventually.”
— What happens if that does happen, we figure out everything there is needed to know. Wouldn’t the next question be, well where did it come from? Like the higgs-boson particle, if it exists and they find a “God” molecule that is the very base of all matter… It still doesn’t explain how the very first most basic particle was formed, how does it appear from nothing? We would know the function of the particle, we would probably figure out how to harness it for ourselves, but would we ever be able discover what created the molecule that is basis of all other molecules.

You said: “or at least you can have faith that we’ll have the answer eventually.”
— What happens if that does happen, we figure out everything there is needed to know. Wouldn’t the next question be, well where did it come from? Like the higgs-boson particle, if it exists and they find a “God” molecule that is the very base of all matter… It still doesn’t explain how the very first most basic particle was formed, how does it appear from nothing? We would know the function of the particle, we would probably figure out how to harness it for ourselves, but would we ever be able discover what created the molecule that is basis of all other molecules.

You said: “or at least you can have faith that we’ll have the answer eventually.”
— What happens if that does happen, we figure out everything there is needed to know. Wouldn’t the next question be, well where did it come from? Like the higgs-boson particle, if it exists and they find a “God” molecule that is the very base of all matter… It still doesn’t explain how the very first most basic particle was formed, how does it appear from nothing? We would know the function of the particle, we would probably figure out how to harness it for ourselves, but would we ever be able discover what created the molecule that is basis of all other molecules.

You said: “or at least you can have faith that we’ll have the answer eventually.”
— What happens if that does happen, we figure out everything there is needed to know. Wouldn’t the next question be, well where did it come from? Like the higgs-boson particle, if it exists and they find a “God” molecule that is the very base of all matter… It still doesn’t explain how the very first most basic particle was formed, how does it appear from nothing? We would know the function of the particle, we would probably figure out how to harness it for ourselves, but would we ever be able discover what created the molecule that is basis of all other molecules.

ARGUE WITH ME

To andrew and Tuna: I am aware that species can transform into another species, but its still within the same genome, and 99% of the time its between closely related species. Because their is room for genetic variation in the genome, as to add an extra layer of fat/fur/camouflage, it doesn’t mean that the genome has the capability to completely transform into something physiologically completely different. Very generalized example: prokaryotic –> eukaryotic –> Walking around, functional, cognitive human beings

ARGUE WITH ME

No it’s not, thats exactly my case. Has anything ever been documented where an animal started transforming to have a completely different permanent function. I’m not talking about genetic activation/deactivation giving way to “hidden” traits that the environment induces. ex: Pigs turn into hogs in the wild. Put them back in the barn they become pigs again.

chris hunter

Agnostic does not mean you believe in god or gods. It means you don’t know, or think you can know one way or the other.

ARGUE WITH ME

” “Australopithecus afarensis” simply means “Southern ape of the
Afar region.” Even the evolutionists have to admit the evidence points
to the conclusion that Lucy and her family are nothing more than archaic
apes. She was not called “Southern archaic human of the Afar region”
because the evidence does not warrant such a designation. To call Australopithecus afarensis a human ancestor is drawing an unfounded conclusion.”

“What about Lucy’s pelvis? Does Owen Lovejoy’s reconstruction of Lucy’s
human-like pelvis prove she is a transitory figure on the human
evolutionary scale? In the first place, we must remember the words of
Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, “Similar anatomy does not always indicate evolutionary relationship.” In other words, fossilized skeletal structure can often be a difficult
tool in determining species and its relationship to other species. It is
particularly difficult to determine the species of the remains when
those remains are crushed into tiny bits and bent out of shape. This was
the state of Lucy’s pelvis when she was discovered. The innominate (the
three bones that make up the hip) were smashed into about forty pieces.

Lovejoy spent six months bending and pasting Lucy’s bones until they
resembled a human pelvis. The accuracy of Lovejoy’s work was immediately
called into question by his own colleagues. Naturalist Alberto Angela
who worked with Johanson at Hadar, wrote that the reconstruction of
Lucy’s pelvis “was based on supposition.” Even
Lovejoy could not mutilate the evidence enough to enlarge the birth
canal. It would not have been physically possible for Lucy to give birth
to a large brained child. Giving birth to such a child would eventually
be necessary if Australopithecus afarensis were going to mutate into the next evolutionary stage. Johanson explains this dilemma as “the sacrum (tail bone) had to narrow throughout human evolution
while another of our adaptive landmarks, larger brains, evolved. Lucy’s
wider sacrum and shallower pelvis gave her a smaller,
kidney-shaped birth canal, compared to that of modern humans.

In other words, Lucy could only have given birth to an ape.”

Is this not valid?

ARGUE WITH ME

” “Australopithecus afarensis” simply means “Southern ape of the
Afar region.” Even the evolutionists have to admit the evidence points
to the conclusion that Lucy and her family are nothing more than archaic
apes. She was not called “Southern archaic human of the Afar region”
because the evidence does not warrant such a designation. To call Australopithecus afarensis a human ancestor is drawing an unfounded conclusion.”

“What about Lucy’s pelvis? Does Owen Lovejoy’s reconstruction of Lucy’s
human-like pelvis prove she is a transitory figure on the human
evolutionary scale? In the first place, we must remember the words of
Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, “Similar anatomy does not always indicate evolutionary relationship.” In other words, fossilized skeletal structure can often be a difficult
tool in determining species and its relationship to other species. It is
particularly difficult to determine the species of the remains when
those remains are crushed into tiny bits and bent out of shape. This was
the state of Lucy’s pelvis when she was discovered. The innominate (the
three bones that make up the hip) were smashed into about forty pieces.

Lovejoy spent six months bending and pasting Lucy’s bones until they
resembled a human pelvis. The accuracy of Lovejoy’s work was immediately
called into question by his own colleagues. Naturalist Alberto Angela
who worked with Johanson at Hadar, wrote that the reconstruction of
Lucy’s pelvis “was based on supposition.” Even
Lovejoy could not mutilate the evidence enough to enlarge the birth
canal. It would not have been physically possible for Lucy to give birth
to a large brained child. Giving birth to such a child would eventually
be necessary if Australopithecus afarensis were going to mutate into the next evolutionary stage. Johanson explains this dilemma as “the sacrum (tail bone) had to narrow throughout human evolution
while another of our adaptive landmarks, larger brains, evolved. Lucy’s
wider sacrum and shallower pelvis gave her a smaller,
kidney-shaped birth canal, compared to that of modern humans.

“Australopithecus afarensis” simply means “Southern ape of the
Afar region.” Even the evolutionists have to admit the evidence points to the conclusion that Lucy and her family are nothing more than archaic apes. She was not called “Southern archaic human of the Afar region” because
the evidence does not warrant such a designation. To call
Australopithecus afarensis a human ancestor is drawing an unfounded
conclusion.”

“What about Lucy’s pelvis? Does Owen Lovejoy’s reconstruction of Lucy’s human-like pelvis prove she is a transitory figure on the human
evolutionary scale? In the first place, we must remember the words of Richard
Leakey and Roger Lewin, “Similar anatomy does not always indicate
evolutionary relationship.” In other words, fossilized skeletal
structure can often be a difficult
tool in determining species and its relationship to other species. It is particularly difficult to determine the species of the remains when those remains are crushed into tiny bits and bent out of shape. This was the state of Lucy’s pelvis when she was discovered. The innominate (thethree bones that make up the hip) were smashed into about forty pieces.

Lovejoy spent six months bending and pasting Lucy’s bones until they resembled a human pelvis. The accuracy of Lovejoy’s work was immediately called into question by his own colleagues. Naturalist Alberto Angela who worked with Johanson at Hadar, wrote that the reconstruction of
Lucy’s pelvis “was based on supposition.” Even
Lovejoy could not mutilate the evidence enough to enlarge the birth canal. It would not have been physically possible for Lucy to give birth to a large brained child. Giving birth to such a child would eventually be necessary if Australopithecus afarensis were going to mutate into
the next evolutionary stage. Johanson explains this dilemma as “the
sacrum (tail bone) had to narrow throughout human evolution while another of our adaptive landmarks, larger brains, evolved. Lucy’s
wider sacrum and shallower pelvis gave her a smaller,
kidney-shaped birth canal, compared to that of modern humans.

Very well thought out. I still have a few qualms. Lets say
we have a variety of pre-evolved organisms, and they are in the same
generalized location (enviromental consistency despite weather variety), then
wouldn’t they all devolpe very similar traits? If natural selection aims at the
progressive movement of organisms evolving into something that will make them
dominant in survival in their environment, thus macroevolving, then wouldn’t
all the organisms in the area, over all the billions of years, evolve into the
“lowest common denominator that ensures the highest chance of survial?”

The subject of this article is why should people who believe in creationism be studying biology? And without proof, then why is it being cemented as a requirement? I don’t doubt, that without beneficial change there is only decline. This isn’t beneficial change, this is an assumption that humans weren’t predominantly put on this earth as superior beings. Since there is no proof, then how could we advance with that type of knowledge? How does that benefit? Im fully in support of learning, modifying, taking advantage of what we have for beneficiary effects.

ARGUE WITH ME

If you actually read my responses instead of trying to think of your next unfounded pre-teen girl type insult at me we might get some where. Im sorry I have to keep reposting this next party, I just don’t think you have the intelligence to read a few posts up and see if it applies to your thoughts:

” “Australopithecus afarensis” simply means “Southern ape of the Afar region.” Even the evolutionists have to admit the evidence points
to the conclusion that Lucy and her family are nothing more than archaic apes. She was not called “Southern archaic human of the Afar region” because
the evidence does not warrant such a designation. To call
Australopithecus afarensis a human ancestor is drawing an unfounded
conclusion.”
“What about Lucy’s pelvis? Does Owen Lovejoy’s reconstruction of Lucy’s human-like pelvis prove she is a transitory figure on the human evolutionary scale? In the first place, we must remember the words of Richard
Leakey and Roger Lewin, “Similar anatomy does not always indicate
evolutionary relationship.” In other words, fossilized skeletal
structure can often be a difficult tool in determining species and its relationship to other species. It is particularly difficult to determine the species of the remains when those remains are crushed into tiny bits and bent out of shape. This was
the state of Lucy’s pelvis when she was discovered. The innominate (the
three bones that make up the hip) were smashed into about forty pieces.
Lovejoy spent six months bending and pasting Lucy’s bones until they resembled a human pelvis. The accuracy of Lovejoy’s work was immediately called into question by his own colleagues. Naturalist Alberto Angela
who worked with Johanson at Hadar, wrote that the reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis “was based on supposition.” Even Lovejoy could not mutilate the evidence enough to enlarge the birth canal. It would not have been physically possible for Lucy to give birth to a large brained child. Giving birth to such a child would eventually be necessary if Australopithecus afarensis were going to mutate into
the next evolutionary stage. Johanson explains this dilemma as “the
sacrum (tail bone) had to narrow throughout human evolution while another of our adaptive landmarks, larger brains, evolved. Lucy’s wider sacrum and shallower pelvis gave her a smaller, kidney-shaped birth canal, compared to that of modern humans.
In other words, Lucy could only have given birth to an ape.”

Is this not valid?

ARGUE WITH ME

So if the higgs-boson particle was found, the basis of all elements, that should dissprove God again? But so how did the very basis of all elements get there? Did it just appear “out of the fucking blue?” If you look at the big bang theory, where did all the elements, all reality come from? What initated the big bang? They have some explanations out there, but then how did whatever was before the big bang get there? Must have been just a bunch of free energy or extra dimension crashing into each other. So how did the energy get there? Did it evolve? I put my money on it came out of the fucking blue. How does nothing come from something? This has yet to be explained

ARGUE WITH ME

thats why its called a belief, thats the basis of religion, thats the seperating factor. Do you believe that there is a master schematic of the universe created by an all-knowing figure that we don’t have evidence for? Or do you believe what humans have to say about how it happened when they themselves can’t prove it, which as well requires faith. Its a choice. Even the limited evidence that scientists claim they have, has many logical fallacies and assumption jumps to saying it’s “our ancestor.” It will be, and forever be a choice in beliefs. Neither will be provable.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

“all the organisms in the area, over all the billions of years, evolve into the

‘lowest common denominator that ensures the highest chance of survial?'”Well i suppose a simple answer to that would be to appeal to the bias of variety that evolution has. If everything evolved to the lowest common denominator, then the first thing that learned how to consume or be resistant to it, would begin to dominate, then the same cycle would continue.

The better answer though, is that anyone (myself included) that tries to claim they know all the ins and outs of how evolution would work is a fool. In other words: I don’t know// further study needed.

And don’t get me wrong, I actually think its a good thing to have people challenge these ideas. If they’re right: great; if their wrong: then evolutionary theory is strengthened. I actually was searching for(but couldnt find unfortunately) a video on paleontological refutation of the fundamental theories of evolution that wasn’t soured with “why aren’t monkeys in zoos turning into humans today” nonsense.

Thereisnobox

Someones been out of the box…..

Expanding Idea

Evolution seems like an intelligent design.

Expanding Idea

Evolution seems like an intelligent design.

Stumage

How so?

Expanding Idea

Use your intelligence to figure it out. If you have intelligence, where did you get it?

Mysophobe

How can someone claim to be intelligent if they can’t even comprehend the origins of their own intelligence? Doh

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

Heh, my views are much in line with that movie, ill have to watch it.

I always sortof thought the thought process of subatomic physics was a little overhyped. Even the nicknamed “God” particle is I dunno… pretentious. Until we deal with the logical conception of infinite regression that materialism is working with, it will continue like this.

I think everyone just needs to read Godel Esher Bach repeatedly until they understand the Incompleteness theorem.

ARGUE WITH ME

No trust me, I appreciate normal thought out responses. I understand what you were saying about one becoming dominant first would continue since it is the first of the bunch. My rebuttal then, would be why haven’t all animals developed legs, fins, gils, lungs, strength, and stealth? since being ambi-functional (i dont know the word) would be the ultimate lowest common denominator increasing chance for survival and having more than enough time to develop over the millions of years. But yet, over these years, we have these animals who are fit with being at the bottom of the food chain. I’m sure sparrows are thinking its unfair as shit that eagles can just snatch them up

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

In no way intending to be a copout, the reason is because its complicated. What i mean is, that from the evolutionary perspective there is no “best” what works for one group wont work for another. Even if it could, a tree would never evolve a foot because it would never be useful (well except maybe to kick squirrels for fun).

One example is a sea squirt. This has a dual life cycle, the first stage it swims around using its functional nervous system consuming its food etc. In the 2nd stage in its life cycle it implants on a rock, and the first thing it does is digest its own nervous system brain and all, simply because it is unnecessary for life.

It is so complicated that there is no single direction for “better”. According to evolution theory, believing in the penultimate superiority of humanity is naive(in both the sense that it is as good as it is going to get, or that it is the best direction life could have gone). I do however believe that we have some superiority just as luck would have it, and if we aren’t careful what is most beneficial for “survival” will involve giving up our gifts of intelligence, wisdom, dexterity, grace, etc.

ARGUE WITH ME

But see, that is a generalization that it eats it’s own brain, simply because its unnecessary for life. There is a reason that it does, it serves a function, whether for itself, or for some predator. See, my problem is, I don’t see the logic in after all these years of evolution, that they remain that way. What is holding them back from evolving to eat fish to increase it’s energy intake/ developmental process? I know that there is no single direction for better, but what is determining this sort of predation heirarchy? What is determining what can prey on others, and most importantly how far the prey can evolve in order to not become preyed on anymore? If we were all to be evolving, I feel like there would be a much greater need for many animals to evolve in a way to eliminate their own predation, or to take advantage of the entire environment around them (as in being able to swim, walk, and fly)? We have capabilities in our brain that some can argue are smarter than computers, and to think some how we just arrived with this super-powered brain. If that leads to increased chance of survival, I would feel at least one of all the species would have developed a brain that matches the cognitive benefits that we have as humans.

http://www.facebook.com/BrooklynDHM.OG Ricky Yapkowitz

Evolution is a Scientific Principle, not theory, meaning it has “withstood the test of time” while amassing an overwhelming, preponderance of supporting evidence; theories are still awaiting their time.

http://www.facebook.com/BrooklynDHM.OG Ricky Yapkowitz

You’ve been affected by many evolutionary changes; bacterial infections you get, associated with colds, are the direct result of micro-organisms having evolved via mutations for centuries. Surely you’ve “watched” the news as they’ve proclaimed another “anti-biotic resistant” strain of bacteria has been “found;” a direct result of mutation and natural selection, in your lifetime, further adding evidence to the Principle of Evolution.

DeepCough

You’re just cherry-picking logical fallacies because you can’t stand the fact that people don’t worship your primitive deity. All apologies that you can’t live in the 21st century like the rest of us Hominids are doing.

DeepCough

I don’t know why you’re bringing up Australopithecus afarensis (all the while calling me the illiterate one while you’re at it) when I was talking about Australopithecus AFRICANUS, the ancestor that would lead to the Homo genus, of which we modern humans are a part.. Now, after all this butthurt bitching about how you don’t like evolution–because it don’t make no sense at all to you–how about you try to argue for me how your choice of deity made everything in a snap of its fingers? Oh, wait, you can’t do that, because your god works in “mysterious ways,” right?

http://www.facebook.com/BrooklynDHM.OG Ricky Yapkowitz

Mutations of organisms with their associated survival due to natural selection have most certainly been “observed.” For example, bacteria have mutated and been sorted out by natural selection, surviving as anti-biotic resistant, “new” strains; the Principle of Evolution.

http://www.facebook.com/BrooklynDHM.OG Ricky Yapkowitz

Again, Evolution is a Principle in Science, not a theory (see above.)

http://www.facebook.com/BrooklynDHM.OG Ricky Yapkowitz

Evolution is the accumulated changes over time; the time for which you are referring is on the order of magnitude of millions of years. If you would have been around for that long a time, then you would have indeed “seen” the “complete(ly) new organism outside of (from) what (organism) it previously ‘was’…” along with the other organisms also “descended” from the same ancestral form. Furthermore, it must be made perfectly clear, that the present organism NEVER “was” the distant ancestral organism, but via numerous mutations and natural selections evolved into what it is presently.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

(Got too squished. moved up to here.)

I dont know the why, only some of the how. The only thing I can really say is that i find fallacy in the general alpha-dog viewpoint of evolution. I believe theres more to evolutionary mechanics than simple random mutation and natural selection(catastrophe/chaos as an example). In this sense i don’t see all life forms end goal just trying to be the one to eat the next bigger fish. Alternatively in the strictly natural selection sense, not having enough food is not the only way a species can fail.

http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

at the time of this writing it says your comment was posted 19 hours ago?

Mysophobe

I thought we were talking about evolution. That’s really at the heart of it, isn’t it? If science can’t explain everything with 100% certainty, then in your mind all science is in doubt. Informed skepticism is usually a good thing. Skepticism is one of the basic foundations of the scientific method. Skepticism in the hands of a willfully misinformed individual, on the other hand, is just sad. I’ll admit, I have faith in the scientific method. I understand that a contrary theory, however unpopular, would get a fair shake if it was based on solid evidence and sound reasoning. The peer review process essentially begs for up-and-comers to knock down established theories with impunity. Shit, it even happened to Darwin’s Origin. I’m not a scientist, that’s not my job. Nor is it my job to explain to you the deeper meaning behind the latest scientific discoveries. That’s religion’s job. Where religion goes wrong is when it tries to fix the facts to fit it’s own agenda.

ARGUE WITH ME

Have you read the comments on this board? Bacteria obtaining antibiotic resistance or whatever additional characteristic, whether if it is through picking up free dna, conjugation, or natural selection, the bacteria will still remain a bacteria. It’s genome won’t transform into a genome of anything similiar to the likes of a eukaryotic type. It will forever, and ever, remain a bacteria. It might have genetic variations, but these genetic variations will not code for complete physiological functional differences or structures, this has never been witnessed or recorded. There is no proof. Interspecies variation is common knowledge, it has proof. Natural selection has proof. Mutations have proof. But there is no proof, only speculation that we evolved from something non-human. There is no proof that any animal has permanently developed into what we would consider a genomically “new” animal after the process. It is very much a theory, when it comes to the origin of living organisms. It is not a theory that animals/and humans have genetic variabilities that can bring out hidden traits, because regardless, it stays the as the same animal, for that there is proof.

ARGUE WITH ME

See explanation above, or below, your choice

Mysophobe

It could be that atheists aren’t nearly as obsessed with disproving God’s existence as insecure Christians are with proving it. For the record, I would be insecure too in their shoes. When taken literally, the good book has been proven wrong about almost everything, scientifically speaking. Maybe time for a re-write?

Mysophobe

It could be that atheists aren’t nearly as obsessed with disproving God’s existence as insecure Christians are with proving it. For the record, I would be insecure too in their shoes. When taken literally, the good book has been proven wrong about almost everything, scientifically speaking. Maybe time for a re-write?

Anonymous

We have no living ancestors because they evolved. We share an ancestor with chimpanzees, for example. That ancestor species evolved because of environmental changes and small random mutations. Those mutations that helped the species thrive long enough to have offspring were passed on to their offspring. Yet those mutations eventually changed the species enough to make it a different species.

ARGUE WITH ME

Out of millions of years, currently right now, not one single organism out of the millions of species, is currently evolving into a different genome. Standard answer. If you were right, and they did evolve in the origin of life sense, that still doesn’t explain why all the animals didn’t evolve into the “lowest common denominator” that would ensure survival. Or if a variety of different organisms were in the same environment during this evolutionary process, why they don’t all share common characteristics that would give them distinct living advantages in the environment which is represented by natural selection. Why is there so much variability in what is “best” for an organism, when it is clear that having legs, wings, fins, and gils, at the same time would be the most advantagous? They have had millions upon millions of years to develop, plenty of enough time. So why not? Or, it doesn’t give rise to the idea of a sparrow. Why, after all those years, wouldn’t a sparrow find it advantageous to evolve to be a bigger bird so its not prey for every eagle? What is determining what organisms can evolve into a predator status? What is determining which animals cannot evolve their way out of predation?
Im getting the idea that it is kind of like skin tone, there is that classic idea that sooner or later interracial relationships will eventually eliminate difference in color, and everyone will be “grey.” (I don’t particularly know if that is actually possible but its the concept). So why after all that time, is there not a “grey” phenotypic trait that ensures ultimate survival in the environment that is shared between all organisms, thus eliminating all other organisms not sharing it through natural selection?
Why, is our brain cognitively superior than all the others? It is a living advantage to be cognitively enhanced, so why isn’t there at least one more animal that shares this trait? Not one animal ever happened to cross paths with what ever we crossed (pre-evolution) that would give an organism superior cognitive abilities?
No other animal, besides primates, happened to grow a mutation out of all those years that would give them opposable thumbs? Why is their such a distinct difference in advantageous traits? Why isn’t their a very random inferior animal that happened to evolve to oposable thumbs? Did humans and primates take up all the oposable thumb DNA?
What is it that was guiding the most basic unit of life through species development, determining the non-essential “extra characteristics” that are displayed such as color, color of beaks, the conditioned variability of eye color, hair/fur textures, position of noses, ect

Mysophobe

“Everyone is saying that we’re…so smart that we can predict for 100% certainty where we came from.”

No. No one is saying that. Every theory is uncertain. Although some are more uncertain than others.

Mysophobe

Being that it’s apparently lifted directly from a creationist website and referenced by no reputable source, no, it’s probably not valid. I could find no corroborating narrative regarding “Lucy” from a non-creationist source. Angela and Johanson appear to express no such doubts in their later work. In fact, later similar fossil discoveries confirmed that Lovejoy’s find was indeed a distinct transitional species. Get with the times.

ARGUE WITH ME

“A reasonable assessment of the fossils of Australopithecus africanus and her “older” cousin, Afarensis,
is that they were no more than an extinct subspecies of the ape family.
Modern apes differ anatomically. For example, a gorilla is not
anatomically the same as an orangutan. Why do we assume that ancient
apes are any different? Zoologists do
not consider variation in skeletal structure in modern apes as an
indication that one ape is more highly evolved than another.”

australopithecus afarensis evolved into an
australopithecus africanus, which evolved into an australopithecus
boisei, which evolved into homo-habillis, which evolved into
homo-erectus…
so…brings me too…
“Even Lovejoy could not mutilate the evidence enough to enlarge the birth
canal. It would not have been physically possible for Lucy to give
birth to a large brained child. Giving birth to such a child would
eventually be necessary if Australopithecus afarensis were going to
mutate into
the next evolutionary stage. Johanson explains this dilemma as “the sacrum
(tail bone) had to narrow throughout human evolution while another of
our adaptive landmarks, larger brains, evolved. Lucy’s wider sacrum and
shallower pelvis gave her a smaller, kidney-shaped birth canal, compared
to that of modern humans.
In other words, Lucy could only have given birth to an ape.”

As well as this still doesn’t resolve, how the most basic unit of life first starts to grow a head, a brain, reproductive systems ect.? How were we to evolve into anything human like if the reproductive system takes to time evolve?

ARGUE WITH ME

Scientifally speaking, whats wrong in the bible? Insecure christians? Is this not a website called disinfo, with the title discussing how they don’t understand why creationists would study biology if they can’t accept that we came from something that doesn’t resemble humans; so i feel this is the proper place to discuss this

ARGUE WITH ME

then they both require faith, because they both aren’t 100% provable, there is always something you have to overlook which requires faith. Making both science and Christianity, a religion. Therefore, why would it be required to learn the orgin of creation via evolutionism which is a theory, to practice a real science that has proof.

ARGUE WITH ME

I don’t see all life forms end goal just trying to be the one to eat the next bigger fish either. I feel that their end goal is to have maximum efficacy at survival. And it happens, that you can’t reach that level until you are at the top of the food chain, so it would be a side-effect if you will for the need to eat the next bigger fish in order to increase the chance for survival. The most basic instinct is the desire to survive, is it not?

ARGUE WITH ME

“The reconstructed pelvis of the Australopithecine (the genus preceding
Homo) dubbed Lucy, who is about 3.5 million years old, indicates that
she could have delivered a baby the size of a newborn chimpanzee, report
anthropologists Robert Tague and C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent (Ohio) State
University. But giving birth would not have been as easy for Lucy as
some researchers have suggested, said Tague last week at the annual
meeting of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in Washington,
D.C. ”

If you are stuck in this evolutionary stage for so long, this would mean a much less chance for reproduction, less chance for survival of the baby, less chance for survival of the mother, not to mention later in the article it says that if it did have a baby, it would require extensive care, that of a normal baby, after the delivery. This doesn’t sound just a little bit like “come on how can we get this lucky” to survive this evolutionary step as a species?

ARGUE WITH ME

Ya alright (sarcasm ensuing) : Because that last comment I made must have made no sense at all

ARGUE WITH ME

Where are you getting these assumptions that religions is trying to fix the facts to fit it’s own agenda? Religion completely agrees with facts. It doesn’t say in the bible gravity is fake, that God holds everyone down with his mind. Its a scientific theory, that went through a scientific process, and is acceptable. There is proof of what goes up comes down. There is no proof intra-genome evolution. Which is the typical evolution origin argument. Regardless of any Lucy and its controversy, there is still nothing explaining how that came to be. When was the step that piece of organic nothing grew a functional head? Thats not possible. I 100% complete definitive science, no skepticism here. Just skeptical about claims that cannot be proven, and we are bashed on our heads by supposed academics until we finally make the belief-leap of if inter-species mutations exist, then we must have an origin from intra-genomic mutations.
There are so many developmental fallacies in this idea of evolution in the idea of nothing to something functional. Yet everyone believes. How would have an organic nothing even fathom the creation of a functional head? What is giving it this idea that this is what it needs to do to survive.

Allthepowerintheworld

At this point in time both theories seem to have become super religions. You see propaganda for both of them. Altering the human pysche on a mass scale is the goal of both. And to achieve such a goal it will come down to who has the supporters with the most cash. Scientists aren’t always right but then again neither are religious nutcases. The beauty of it is that both have potential to sway the masses and potentially steer the course of future. And the media is the vehicle for it.

Allthepowerintheworld

At this point in time both theories seem to have become super religions. You see propaganda for both of them. Altering the human pysche on a mass scale is the goal of both. And to achieve such a goal it will come down to who has the supporters with the most cash. Scientists aren’t always right but then again neither are religious nutcases. The beauty of it is that both have potential to sway the masses and potentially steer the course of future. And the media is the vehicle for it.

Tuna Ghost

what about when the speciation leads to a species that, while similar, can no longer procreate with the species that spawned it? Why are you under the impression that you are able to dictate the terms of what is and is not evolution?

Years ago, scientists were theorizing that birds were the descendants of dinosaurs. The old guard said that was ridiculous, that while the fossil record showed many similarities there would have to be some fossil showing a dinosaur with feathers for anyone to ever seriously entertain the notion, which would never happen because its a stupid idea. In fact, if one uses the scientific method, then one would have to find such a fossil for the theory to be tenable, but it’ll never happen, the old guard said, because its a stupid idea. Then they started finding fossils of dinosaurs with feathers.

Tuna Ghost

what about when the speciation leads to a species that, while similar, can no longer procreate with the species that spawned it? Why are you under the impression that you are able to dictate the terms of what is and is not evolution?

Years ago, scientists were theorizing that birds were the descendants of dinosaurs. The old guard said that was ridiculous, that while the fossil record showed many similarities there would have to be some fossil showing a dinosaur with feathers for anyone to ever seriously entertain the notion, which would never happen because its a stupid idea. In fact, if one uses the scientific method, then one would have to find such a fossil for the theory to be tenable, but it’ll never happen, the old guard said, because its a stupid idea. Then they started finding fossils of dinosaurs with feathers.

Allthepowerintheworld

At this point in time both theories seem to have become super religions. You see propaganda for both of them. Altering the human pysche on a mass scale is the goal of both. And to achieve such a goal it will come down to who has the supporters with the most cash. Scientists aren’t always right but then again neither are religious nutcases. The beauty of it is that both have potential to sway the masses and potentially steer the course of future. And the media is the vehicle for it.

ARGUE WITH ME

A mule cannot breed with anything.

As for dinosaurs, if that is right or not, the concept of it looking similar and it being directly related cannot be taken as fact.

No, it sounds like some researchers claimed giving birth would have been easy and some others suggested it would have been not as easy as those researchers claimed. In fact, that is the literal definition of the sentence you quoted.

You are really, really reaching now, aren’t you?

Tuna Ghost

What do you mean by “completely new”? Several seemingly different species have very, very similar DNA. What differences are you looking for? You keep moving the goalposts.

Tuna Ghost

What do you mean by “completely new”? Several seemingly different species have very, very similar DNA. What differences are you looking for? You keep moving the goalposts.

Tuna Ghost

I am aware that species can transform into another species, but its still within the same genome, and 99% of the time its between closely related species.
Moving goalposts. Anyway, with each successive generation the species moves further and further away from the one that spawned it. So give that a billion years and yeah, you’re gonna get walking fish.

The leap from prokaryotic to eukaryotic was one of those 1% chances you imply in the sentence I quoted. Our own mitochondria is evidence of that happening; evidence we don’t really need because we’ve seen symbiotic relationships with single celled organisms develop.

Tuna Ghost

species don’t have “permanent functions”. Some organs do, like, you know, your appendix. And evolution can make those organs redundant or useless. Like your appendix.

No one is talking about genetic activation. When are you going to acknowledge that speciation is the spawning of a new species? Because a cricket doesn’t turn into a poodle, you don’t call it evolution? C’mon guy.

Tuna Ghost

I was about to note the extreme invalidity of this, but Mysophobe beat me to it.

Mysophobe

I know, it’s disappointing that Lucy could only give birth to a baby Lucy, rather than some Lucy-human hybrid. That is putting a lot of pressure on her though, asking that she be solely responsible for birthing yet another immediate transitional species. Seriously though, 3.5 million years is a looooong time. 220,000 sixteen year long generations. There’s no rush. And who says the human brain is required to evolve before the body does? I think you’re also reading in a bit with the Tague quote: “Giving birth would not have been as easy for Lucy as some researchers have suggested” is kind of a meaningless statement, and does not imply that birthing was particularly difficult, or support your implication that it and the lack of a human sized brain indicates low survivability of the species. You must realize that it’s amazing we found just one example of a Lucy 3.5 million years later. There must have been thousands of them at least. Besides, who says Lucy is the standard bearer of her species?

Stumage

I’m afraid your mistaken. Evolution is a theory, because it is a Hypothesis. Secondly it was formalized in “The theory of evolution” by Charles Darwin. The science of Evolution is based on the principles from this theory. A useful example would be a comparison of Newtonian physics and Quantum Physics. Newtonian physics predicts many things very well, but Quantum Physics predicts them better. Although (in my opinion) highly unlikely, the theory of evolution could be displaced by a new one, by making better predictions. Do not take my word for however, look it up on any university website that teaches it, or ask the scientists themselves what the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific principle is.

Stumage

I’m afraid your mistaken. Evolution is a theory, because it is a Hypothesis. Secondly it was formalized in “The theory of evolution” by Charles Darwin. The science of Evolution is based on the principles from this theory. A useful example would be a comparison of Newtonian physics and Quantum Physics. Newtonian physics predicts many things very well, but Quantum Physics predicts them better. Although (in my opinion) highly unlikely, the theory of evolution could be displaced by a new one, by making better predictions. Do not take my word for however, look it up on any university website that teaches it, or ask the scientists themselves what the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific principle is.

Stumage

How so?

Stumage

How so?

None

Why cant both co-exist? God created us to evolute.

None

Why cant both co-exist? God created us to evolute.

None

Why cant both co-exist? God created us to evolute.

Andrew

A more accurate theory would be that God designed the structure of matter to form life and evolve.

Mysophobe

Let’s see…Genesis’ description of a flat earth surrounded by a solid dome decorated with the stars, sun and moon, the woman being created from the mans rib, the mountaintop-high flood and Noah’s ensuing logistical nightmare, “the whole earth being of one language” in 2400 BC, the Phillistines returning to Canaan 800 years too late. In Exodus, Moses birth story is suspiciously similar to that of Sargon, the Jews take 40 years to make a 3 week trip to Canaan and grow from a population of 75 to several million in a few hundred years, and God leads the Jews through the land of the Phillistines hundreds of years before the Pillistines live there. In Leviticus, God falsely proclaims hares and coneys to be ruminants and bats are birds. In Numbers, the Israelite population goes from 70 the 600,000 males in a few generations, god sends quails until they are “two cubits high upon the face of the earth”. There’s more if you want to hear it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad you’re here. You fascinate me.

chubby

it gets worse, check out the various apocrypha and legends of the jews

http://www.facebook.com/BrooklynDHM.OG Ricky Yapkowitz

No need to be “afraid,” but it not I who is mistaken. Evolution is NOT a hypothesis by any definition. As to the “semantics” of Principle vs Theory, that is a real issue, one in which I and many other people in Science have been engaged. Science educational pedagogy rigorously reinforces the idea that practitioners of science use “precise, unambiguous” terms when describing their work. However, this has clearly not been the case, rather our language has been essentially “gobblety-gook” and confusing with the misconception that if you don’t understand it, you’re just “not smart enough.” It is to this point, that I have dedicated almost a lifetime of endeavor in Science Education; to bring the beauty of Science to the People, all gobblety-gook aside.

The current philosophy of Science has at it’s core, the progression of thinking to help describe the Cosmos about us generally flowing along the following “stream:”

Observation of Phenomenon
|
[Hypotheses]
Hypothesizing (reasonable description/explanation of phenomenon), of
which there may be many to be quantitatively validated, out-rightly discounted, or revised for new “testing” of each particular hypothesis.
|
[Theory]
Eventually resulting in a massively, statistically validated more unified description which “seems” to best describe/explain the phenomenon. At this point, we state with strong certainty, a Theory.
|
[Principle]
While a Theory is accepted as “the most compelling” description of the phenomenon, “testing” of the Theory continues as it must “stand the test of time.” Time tends to bring other “parts” into the Theory and over time, all those parts are melded into a Scientific Principle, which we used to call “Laws.”

It is important to realize that the “flow along the stream” of this scientific thought process with associated quantitative refinement and validation, is actually meandering, with rivulets, rather than a “direct path;” it is a dynamic process. As such, Scientific Principles, such as Evolution, have “stood the test of time,”
being subjected to rigorous, on-going study and amassing a
“preponderance of evidence.”

—————————————————————————————————————–
Where do Newtonian Mechanics/Physics and Quantum Mechanics/Physics fit into this flow?

First, each has as it’s objective to describe/explain, the who, what, where, why, when, and how, of. . .

” . . .if the state of a dynamic system is known initially and
something is done to it, how will the state of the system
change with time in response?. . .”

Secondly, Newtonian Mechanics has continued to wonderfully describe systems on a “macro” scale, while Quantum Mechanics serves equally wonderfully to describe systems on a “sub-micro” scale (actually atomic and subatomic). Yes, it’s true that Newtonian Mechanics still had some “anomalies” which needed to dealt with. Quantum Mechanics has helped us to deal with those anomalies and work towards a more Unified Theory in Physics, blending the more classical parts with the more modern parts.

It is here, where the beauty lies, in the ebb and flow of the stream of scientific thought, ever onward towards a bit more unification of theory and resulting principles; wherever it may lead.

http://www.facebook.com/BrooklynDHM.OG Ricky Yapkowitz

Again, Evolution is a Principle in Science, not a theory (see further explanation above )

Anonymous

I suggest we build a time machine and so back to the day of creation, or whatever, then we will know 100% where we came from. But we can’t do that? Then that is why people think about these things and come to logical conclusions (scientifically) We can’t know something that can’t be known – yet. Unlike religion there is physical proof that can back up the evolution theory; fossils of hominid humans that stretch through thousands of years tell a very sound story.

Where do you think we all come from? Or is it pointless to think about these things since we don’t know and the chances of us knowing may be slim?

Anonymous

What?

Derp the idiot

Every time an organism reproduces something that is from its own species it supports creationism dipshit.

Tuna Ghost

No one is talking about mules. No one mentioned mules. Why are you talking about mules. Mules are not an example of evolution.

It isn’t about looking similar. It couldn’t be because no one has ever seen a dinosaur. Is that really what you think the scientific method entails? Looking at stuff and deciding they’re similar?

Andrew

How so?

Andrew

How so?

Tuna Ghost

Religion completely agrees with facts

Tell that to Galileo.

Andrew

Evolution in no way disproves the existence of God. It only disproves literal interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis.

Andrew

“Religion” is plural, and they don’t all agree on the facts.

Andrew

A more accurate theory would be that God designed the structure of matter to form life and evolve.

Mysophobe

Actually, the bible’s description of the observable celestial effects of gravity is pretty much completely wrong. A flat earth at the center of the universe surrounded by a dome embedded with the celestial bodies? C’mon. Why does god need to lie about the nature of his own creation? For an example of a religious person fixing the facts to suit their agenda, look no further than a guy downthread attempting to distort the fossil record for his own ends. Not to mention that the strawman version of evolution you seem to be arguing against exists only in your imagination. How many times do you have to be told that evolution is a painfully slow process before you stop demanding to see an example of radical observable changes in a single generation. If that’s really what you think evolutionary theory purports, then you can declare victory and go home. You win. That particular “evolutionary” theory is just silly and not worth defending. Let me try to explain to you how it really works in a way you can understand. You’ve heard people say that they can trace their heredity back say 10 generations, right? Would you agree that the current generation would appear, on average, slightly taller, more lanky, more tolerant of lactose, more naturally resistant to malaria, generally genetically dissimilar in many, less observable ways than his oldest known ancestor? Now take that same 10 generation timeframe and multiply it by 20,000 and imagine the changes you’d observe, even in a relatively static environment such as ours. Do you really think this distant descendant would look so similar to contemporary humans that we could be called the same species? Do you really think we could successfully mate together? Now imagine that we manage to seed a distant planet identical to earth with human life in the near future. Without contact with each other, do you really think these two human groups would closely resemble each other after several million years of independent evolution? This is evolution. Minute changes over hundreds of thousands of generations, not sudden changes in a single generation. This is what everyone else here is talking about. If you really want to make a case against something, you should first understand it. Unfortunately, this may require you visiting some science websites instead of religious ones.

Tuna Ghost

Out of millions of years, currently right now, not one single organism out of the millions of species, is currently evolving into a different genome.

You don’t know what the word “genome” means, do you. I ask because I haven’t seen you use this word correctly yet.

That still doesn’t explain why all the animals didn’t evolve into the “lowest common denominator” that would ensure survival

That doesn’t ensure survival. Lack of variation in organisms means greater vulnerability to extinction rather than less, no matter how suited they are. Extinction events in the history of the planet have demonstrated this time and again. Besides, even bacteria, which are the most resilient organisms we’ve come across to date, would eventually evolve into something if left on its own for a billion years. Why aren’t you able to grasp this?

No other animal, besides primates, happened to grow a mutation out of all those years that would give them opposable thumbs?

Because apex predators don’t need thumbs. At any rate, you say “only primates have thumbs, lol that’s dumb” when in reality the scientific community says “if it has an opposable thumb, its a primate”.

Besides, the thumb issue speaks for evolution, not against. Many different species of mammal have similar bone structures in their limbs (see dolphins) which suggest a common ancestor.

Mysophobe

Instinct and desire have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. An organism doesn’t will itself to have genetically improved offspring. It’s all about random genetic mutation. Being at the top of the food chain in no way implies greater survivability. Actually, the opposite is probably the case. Recall that vegetarian rodents survived a cataclysm that wiped out the mighty t-rex. Why are lions threatened with extinction while their “less evolved” prey are thriving?

Andrew

Evolution, once you understand it, is simply logical. Even if some species were originally created by God, it would still happen as it is happening today.

Mysophobe

Your attempts to put the science of the bible on equal footing with actual science does both a gross disservice. Debating the “facts” in the bible versus the “religious faiths” in science is a pretty pointless exercise. You are looking for common ground where there is non. I think if you were to ask scientists who call themselves religious what they believe, you would find that they are in pursuit of understanding the true nature of God, not trying to reinforce the biblical version of Him. An atheist scientist would probably tell you the same thing, although in different terms, without a single thought towards disproving the bible. The bible simply isn’t the least bit pertinent to the actual pursuit of the best scientific explanation of a given subject. I’m not knocking the bible at all, it’s a wonderful collection of books with many great lessons. But we do ourselves a horrible disservice when we use it as a starting point in the pursuit of knowledge.

Emberleo

Evolving from primate to human is a change in species(the smallest possible distinction in the animal order) whereas bacteria changing to fungus would mean an organism changing kingdoms, which is the most broad classification of organism. Two hugely different comparisons. You’re right, changing kingdoms is absolutely rediculous. So, basically you shot yourself in the foot with that argument considering it doesn’t relate at all to the evolution of primate to human.

Andrew

Changing kingdoms is ridiculous, but developing a new kingdom isn’t ridiculous at all given millions and millions of years, and given that kingdoms are just human defined terms in the fist place. And domain is the highest taxonomic rank (“most broad classification of organism”), not kingdom.

Also, humans (species) are primates (order).

Abdallaa09

You right Evolution is the theory, adaption is the principle.

Adam

And the gray area between or joining of Quantum and Newtonian Mechanics
is where a potential Theory of Everything comes in, correct? That a
scientific theory that can reconcile both the macro (“traditional” physics involving roughly human-sized objects) and the micro (subatomic
particles and “quantum weirdness’) is sort of the Holy Grail of physics
at the moment.

My question is, where does Einstein’s Theory of
Relativity, Cosmology, and the physics of huge planet- and
star-sized objects come in? It was my understanding that a key dilemma in physics was how the physics of the really big stuff (stars, galaxies, etc.) jibes with that of the really small stuff (electrons, protons, quarks, and so on). Does Relativity and the like fit in with the regular “macro” or is it really in a category of its own.

Legitimate question, by the way; I’m not trying to provoke an argument here.

Daedalus

As does most of the jobless hanging out on the frontline, Brixton. So at least those students wont want for company or an occupation when they finish college.

Daedalus

As does most of the jobless hanging out on the frontline, Brixton. So at least those students wont want for company or an occupation when they finish college.

UrbanMonk

People die every day, we are still here. We are figments of your imagination only because you haven’t figured out who we are. Without Truth, what else can you do but project? Sorry, your not special, Reality gave all to all.

UrbanMonk

People die every day, we are still here. We are figments of your imagination only because you haven’t figured out who we are. Without Truth, what else can you do but project? Sorry, your not special, Reality gave all to all.

UrbanMonk

People die every day, we are still here. We are figments of your imagination only because you haven’t figured out who we are. Without Truth, what else can you do but project? Sorry, your not special, Reality gave all to all.

UrbanMonk

People die every day, we are still here. We are figments of your imagination only because you haven’t figured out who we are. Without Truth, what else can you do but project? Sorry, your not special, Reality gave all to all.

UrbanMonk

People die every day, we are still here. We are figments of your imagination only because you haven’t figured out who we are. Without Truth, what else can you do but project? Sorry, your not special, Reality gave all to all.

UrbanMonk

People die every day, we are still here. We are figments of your imagination only because you haven’t figured out who we are. Without Truth, what else can you do but project? Sorry, your not special, Reality gave all to all.

UrbanMonk

People die every day, we are still here. We are figments of your imagination only because you haven’t figured out who we are. Without Truth, what else can you do but project? Sorry, your not special, Reality gave all to all.

Expanding Idea

Use your intelligence to figure it out. If you have intelligence, where did you get it?

DeepCough

It seems to me that you are hung up on this label of “human,” and that shows to me what a fucking retard you are. You insist too much that “Homo sapiens sapiens” is just “too human” to have come from a mere “animal” like an Australopithecene, which means you probably beleive that a deity or a Designer created us EXACTLY the way we are now 10,000 years ago.

Well, I hate to break it to you, Jack, but evolution is NOT a SUDDEN PROCESS, okay? That is why the age of the Earth is important in the argument of natural selection: it takes time–AEONS–for organisms to develop, because no one–NOTHING–comes out of thin air instantaneously. Now how could you possibly keep trying to debunk evolution on a logical basis without considering that first? Ever hear the adage that “Rome wasn’t built in a day?” Because it wasn’t–it took seven centuries before the fall of the Res Publica Romana, and this is just one way you can apply the argument of evolution outside of a biological context.

Speaking of biology, are you even the least bit familiar with the birthing process, because, chances are, you’re a Christian fundamentalist who abhors sex and all that is attached to it (because your overbearing prick of a god said so). You see, when human babies are birthed from human vaginas, their heads are NOT perfectly round shaped like mine is and yours might be, since birthing something like that could break the baby’s skull or the female’s pelvis, which is already built for such an act. When a baby comes out, for a while, it look like a conehead (refer to pic). Seriously, every person on the planet who has been birthed vaginally had a misshapen head, because that’s the easiest way for the baby to slide out. You really, really need to get over the fact that we humans are perfect when we are anythiing but, because no deity in the entirety of human history ever desired that for humans in the first place. And, if you read the article “Unintelligent Design” from Discover Magazine, you’ll find an intriguing argument that states it was viruses that helped to determine the course of life here on Earth, as they are rogue pieces of RNA and DNA that test which lifeforms have the best genes suited for survival. If you still think there is a god or Designer after that article, then you will have to assume that such a being is certainly not benevolent: rather, it is clearly a mad scientist.

You’re in good company. This was essentially Ayn Rand’s view of death. Explains a lot. There’s audio of it floating around the Internet somewheres…

Mysophobe

How can someone claim to be intelligent if they can’t even comprehend the origins of their own intelligence? Doh

chubby

you know, I am surprised a paradigm shift has not yet occurred (maybe only in the tenure gripped minds of institution lackeys), the -ologies have no distinct advantage, one over another. they all occupy the same reality, they are not separated by different dimensions spying one another from computer screens (although we do) they are all working, this instant, if one is incomplete, then what does that say of the others? many are decried as archaic to not toe the various lines, but things are changing at such a rate that there seems to even be no line anymore….

Paul

Some people here are losing sight of the real issue here…

Creationist’s are morons, and they’re having moron children. While the world around them adapts to new information, they stay the same. In their own way they’re a living argument against evolution…

nonetheless, a stupid argument.

Paul

Some people here are losing sight of the real issue here…

Creationist’s are morons, and they’re having moron children. While the world around them adapts to new information, they stay the same. In their own way they’re a living argument against evolution…

nonetheless, a stupid argument.

Paul

Quite a lot of waffle!
Creationist’s aren’t chasing ANYTHING, because they think everything’s been explained.
Science on the other hand holds nothing to be sacred, and if you have the evidence ANY of it’s principles can be challenged. Science itself evolves.

You are a dumb human.

Anonymous

There is wide variation in pelvic shape (anteroposterior diameter/ width of pubic arch, transverse diameter, etc.) in human females. Of the four pelvic shapes, two (which account for 33% of females) have poor prognosis for vaginal birth because the fetal head cannot adapt to the birth canal. Thus we have C-sections, and in the past we had high infant/mother mortality rates.

Anonymous

There is wide variation in pelvic shape (anteroposterior diameter/ width of pubic arch, transverse diameter, etc.) in human females. Of the four pelvic shapes, two (which account for 33% of females) have poor prognosis for vaginal birth because the fetal head cannot adapt to the birth canal. Thus we have C-sections, and in the past we had high infant/mother mortality rates.

DeepCough

For comment #200 of this overblown thread, I would like to submit for
the viewing pleasure of ardent Disinfonauts and goddamned trolls alike
the following documentaries: “Flock of Dodos” and “Expelled: No
Intelligence Allowed” as a way to sum up how debate is made on both
sides of the aisle on the issue of evolution in Biology.

P.S. “Expelled” sucks. It sucks so hard, it makes you wanna drink a whole bottle of Clear Eyes.

For comment #200 of this overblown thread, I would like to submit for
the viewing pleasure of ardent Disinfonauts and goddamned trolls alike
the following documentaries: “Flock of Dodos” and “Expelled: No
Intelligence Allowed” as a way to sum up how debate is made on both
sides of the aisle on the issue of evolution in Biology.

P.S. “Expelled” sucks. It sucks so hard, it makes you wanna drink a whole bottle of Clear Eyes.

While some theists many subscribe to religious doctrine that meets your description, most believe that to be a wholly inadequate understanding of things. I was once told a parable by a very devout evangelical Christian, one who believed absolutely in the power of prayer, creationism, divine will, the Rapture, etc. It went something like this:

A very pious, Christian man, watching the evening news, sees an urgent alert that his town will be flooded and everyone must evacuate. He decided that God would protect him from any flood, because he was so faithful, and decided to ignore the warning. Then it started to rain, and flood, and as the water rose he climbed to his roof in order to escape the water. One of his neighbors came to him in a fishing boat and offered to take him to safety, but he declined, insisting that God would save him. Exasperated and confused, his neighbor left the man on his roof. A while later a helicopter came to rescue him, but again he told them to leave, that God would save him, and eventually they too left him alone on his rapidly disintegrating rooftop. After a few more minutes, the house broke apart, the man was sucked into the water, and he drowned.

The man went to heaven, and received a short tour and meet and greet with the major players. God asked him if there was anything else he had questions about, and the man responded: “Just out of curiosity, why didn’t you save me from that flood?” God looked at him and replied “I sent a warning on the TV, your neighbor with a boat and a helicopter to save you. Why did you just sit on your roof?”

Your criticism of theism is no more valid than the criticisms some theists have of science.

Anonymous

Arguing with intentional ignorance is a fool’s errand.

Re the bottom line in science: The theory that explains the most empirical data with the fewest assumptions comes the closest to describing reality.

If deniers of biological evolution can field a theory that comes remotely close to explaining as much (detailed) empirical data as the theory of evolution, let’s hear it. Else, they should be labeled as the anti-scientific wackos that they are and kept as far away, as legally possible, from policy making based on science and the science-education system.

whoodoo

Arguing with intentional ignorance is a fool’s errand.

Re the bottom line in science: The theory that explains the most empirical data with the fewest assumptions comes the closest to describing reality.

If deniers of biological evolution can field a theory that comes remotely close to explaining as much (detailed) empirical data as the theory of evolution, let’s hear it. Else, they should be labeled as the anti-scientific wackos that they are and kept as far away, as legally possible, from policy making based on science and the science-education system.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jai-Ankers/100000395755973 Jai Ankers

He pisses me off, but I do agree that aliens gave civilization a helping hand. Way too many cultures have stories of “gods” descending from the sky.

But that they created us, not so much.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jai-Ankers/100000395755973 Jai Ankers

But there is proof of evolution for other creatures, so evolution for humans would be the most logical conclusion, right?

justagirl

i wish people wouldn’t get creation confused with the christian faith. furthermore, i wish the christian “faith” wouldn’t scare people into “believing” in their religion.

justagirl

i wish people wouldn’t get creation confused with the christian faith. furthermore, i wish the christian “faith” wouldn’t scare people into “believing” in their religion.